# EV Fees to Offset Lost Gas Tax Revenue



## slicknick13

Although pricey compared to the gas tax, these heavy EV's need to pay for road wear somehow. So, it's not exactly unfair. Just level. Mileage based taxes are the most fair, but nobody wants that.

Gotta feel for Michigan though, I know a couple of engineers up there and they really do struggle with getting the right materials together to keep their roads in good shape. Brutal conditions for road construction.


----------



## garsh

slicknick13 said:


> Although pricey compared to the gas tax, these heavy EV's need to pay for road wear somehow.


Large trucks cause a much larger proportion of road wear.

A Model 3 weighs 3,838 to 4,072 lbs, depending on version. That's right at the "average car" weight in this table.


----------



## Ericb

Model 3 weighs about 500lbs more than a honda accord. That's not a huge difference, that's 2 large people.


----------



## slicknick13

I appreciate the comparisons, but at the end of the day, most EV's don't pay a road tax while contributing to wear. As more EV's are adopted, or even as ICE vehicles get more efficient, gas tax and infrastructure revenue decreases. That accord that's within 500lbs is paying 100 bucks a year on average. The hummer about 300.

There's not even a good, fair solution to the problem. It'd have to some weight based federal tax tied to registration and mileage to avoid tax havens. Tesla semi could, in theory, not pay a dime in road tax.


----------



## Ericb

Obviously EVs need a road tax, or dedicate states taxes to roads and remove the road tax from fossil fuels. But weight is a silly argument. Would you tax an ICE car that is riding with 4 adults more than you would a single person in an electric car?


----------



## slicknick13

Ericb said:


> Obviously EVs need a road tax, or dedicate states taxes to roads and remove the road tax from fossil fuels. But weight is a silly argument. Would you tax an ICE car that is riding with 4 adults more than you would a single person in an electric car?


No, picking nits is silly. But if road wear is exponential based on weight, and GVWR is a hard fact, it seems silly not to consider it.


----------



## Love

garsh said:


> Large trucks cause a much larger proportion of road wear.
> 
> A Model 3 weighs 3,838 to 4,072 lbs, depending on version. That's right at the "average car" weight in this table.


How much does the "fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle" have to pay?

I'm already reserved to the point that as EVs become more adopted and wide spread, more and more states will add a fee of some kind like Michigan. No matter what we do in life, there's always going to be someone somewhere with their hand out.

I'll add that I'll gladly pay a "you used the road, you should help pay for it" tax as soon as all ICE drivers pay a "you are taking years off my life and killing people" tax.


----------



## slicknick13

Lovesword said:


> I'll add that I'll gladly pay a "you used the road, you should help pay for it" tax as soon as all ICE drivers pay a "you are taking years off my life and killing people" tax.


I would gladly pay that to keep enthusiast cars on the road.

Lets be honest though, just because we bought an EV in the past couple of years doesn't make us any better than someone that drives an ICE vehicle. Not everyone has the cash, and I doubt that more than a handful of us went from nothing to electric. Definitely one of those check your privilege moments.


----------



## garsh

slicknick13 said:


> I appreciate the comparisons, but at the end of the day, most EV's don't pay a road tax while contributing to wear.


The reason why I posted that chart was to show you that the "wear" argument is incorrect. A garbage truck driving down your street once puts just as much wear on your street as your Model 3 driving on it every single day for two years.

If you want a more generic argument that every car owner needs to pitch in to maintain the streets, that's fine, but trying to couch it in terms of the amount of wear put on the road due to a heavy EV is a flawed argument.


----------



## Love

slicknick13 said:


> I would gladly pay that to keep enthusiast cars on the road.
> 
> Lets be honest though, just because we bought an EV in the past couple of years doesn't make us any better than someone that drives an ICE vehicle. Not everyone has the cash, and I doubt that more than a handful of us went from nothing to electric. Definitely one of those check your privilege moments.


On the contrary, I'd say it _does_ make me better. I'm a small man and it's all about the status symbol of owning a Tesla. I look down on everyone now.

Also, how should I check my privilege for you? Do I owe you something?


----------



## slicknick13

garsh said:


> If you want a more generic argument that every car owner needs to pitch in to maintain the streets, that's fine, but trying to couch it in terms of the amount of wear put on the road due to a heavy EV is a flawed argument.


Hanging onto the heavy word was really not what I was getting at, but the cars are heavy for their size. Still not paying their share in most locations, regardless of the amount of garbage trucks rolling.



Lovesword said:


> Also, how should I check my privilege for you? Do I owe you something?


Don't owe me a thing. After all, at this point in mainstream EV ownership, you're not any more special that the lady driving the clapped out '82 cutlass down the road.


----------



## Feathermerchant

I think annual mileage and vehicle weight would be the fairest. The stats could be gathered at each state inspection then used to come up with a fair tax rate.
The gasoline tax would then be eliminated.


----------



## slicknick13

Feathermerchant said:


> I think annual mileage and vehicle weight would be the fairest. The stats could be gathered at each state inspection then used to come up with a fair tax rate.
> The gasoline tax would then be eliminated.


The big argument against this is that the state can't prove the mileage driven was within their borders, cheating out other states. I would think it would average out or be a non-issue.

Other problem with this is there would be some state out there with lax requirements or some loophole that the biggest offenders can register their vehicles in.


----------



## Ericb

slicknick13 said:


> The big argument against this is that the state can't prove the mileage driven was within their borders, cheating out other states.


How would that be any different from the Registration tax based on vehicle weight?


----------



## SR22pilot

slicknick13 said:


> The big argument against this is that the state can't prove the mileage driven was within their borders, cheating out other states. I would think it would average out or be a non-issue.
> 
> Other problem with this is there would be some state out there with lax requirements or some loophole that the biggest offenders can register their vehicles in.


Yeah and someone buys a tank of gas just before crossing into another state. The present system misses that. In Georgia they charge me the same whether I drive 1 mile a year of 100,000. What if I lived in Georgia near the state line and worked in South Carolina? There is no perfect system. Mileage and weight is as close as we can come without resorting to GPS tracing our every move. That was proposed once. Fortunately the proposal was killed. I don't want the government tracking everywhere I go. Mileage and weight would be a lot closer to fair than what Georgia has now.


----------



## slicknick13

Ericb said:


> How would that be any different from the Registration tax based on vehicle weight?


It's not. But that's what the fight is going to be/already is. Perfect solution is to toll every road.

Burning fuel in proximity to the station where it was purchased and making that tax money based on the fuel mileage of the vehicle it goes into works for the most part.

And states with higher road maintenance costs are going to take a bath on something that's consistent across the states.


----------



## msjulie

At some point, road use fees seem reasonable but with American tastes leaning so strongly towards ever-larger gas powered vehicles which advertise their 'fantastic' MPG which is only in the teens or low 20s (Ram, Ford F150 and related SUVs to just name a couple) and then add the huge incentives given directly to fossil fuel companies, road use tax for EVs seems a really bad idea at this point.

I know some folks that seem to be aware of what's going on in the world, seem intelligent, have (or will soon) small children and the only thing even making them think of an EV is the car pool lane sticker... add another 'tax' to it and it will discourage too many I think..


----------



## PNWmisty

Feathermerchant said:


> I think annual mileage and vehicle weight would be the fairest. The stats could be gathered at each state inspection then used to come up with a fair tax rate.
> The gasoline tax would then be eliminated.


If anything, gas should be taxed more to pay for the cost to society of extracting/burning it. Excise taxes should not only be used to cover road damage. We have an alcohol tax to cover (part) of the cost of abuse. We have tobacco tax to cover health costs. Roads are public infrastructure and will be funded through various means. The gas tax should increase to encourage less costly/harmful solutions.

Global warming is taking its toll on roads all over with more excessively hot days, more extreme weather, rising sea levels in coastal areas, more powerful storms, etc. The tanker trucks that bring the gas to the pumps take an extraordinary toll on the roads but are not taxed in proportion to the damage they cause. Same with the fracking rigs hauled from field to field and all the water trucks used to frack. The toll is enormous but they are not paying their share. By taxing gas at a higher rate and diverting some of the revenue collected to reduce the tax burden on payers of property tax and income tax, incentivizes behavior that makes us stronger and healthier as a society and decreases the burdens on our children and grandchildren. I was taught to take care of myself and not to leave a mess for others to clean up.

Reducing the gas tax doesn't achieve our common goals. Well, common goals if you don't make your living by collecting oil mineral rights royalties.


----------



## JWardell

Our country is already funding our roads notoriously wrong. Our roads and bridges are crumbling and are a joke compared to most other developed countries. The gas tax already was not getting things done. State governments need to take a serious look at funding our infrastructure properly. I won't even get started on the state of our train and public transportation systems.


----------



## slicknick13

Take a look at a state like Florida, which is half Canadian this time of year. They would be devistated by any tax that isn’t point of use.


----------



## garsh

slicknick13 said:


> but the cars are heavy for their size.


The Model 3 really isn't that much heavier than a comparable combustion vehicle. It's certainly a lot lighter than any pickup truck.

Tesla Model 3: 3552 - 4072 lbs
BMW 3-series: 3053 - 3847 lbs


----------



## Feathermerchant

My truck (F150) - 6,000 lb empty.


----------



## Karl Sun

Unfortunately adding minimal fees to EVs still leaves most states at east $2Billion a year behind what is needed just for maintaining the roads.

In my state, we're more than $20Billion behind already. Adding $500/year to 20,000 EVs isn't even a ripple in the pond. Petrol tax hasn't been increased since 1993 while all those ICE vehicles over the past decades have decreased their sucking of petrol significantly, lowering total revenue. And it's going to get much worse.

IMHO petrol taxes must increase by at least $4.00/gallon immediately if we're going to have any impact on the maintenance deficit. That change would also do more to increase EV sales than all other "incentives" combined.

But we all know how likely that is to happen. About the same odds as winning ten (10) $1Billion PowerBalls in a row.

Sad.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Karl Sun said:


> IMHO petrol taxes must increase by at least $4.00/gallon immediately if we're going to have any impact on the maintenance deficit..


I think they just tried that in France. It hasn't gone well...


----------



## Spiffywerks

How many EVs are on the road vs petrol cars? Now if 30% of the cars on the road are EV, then your talking a tax might make a difference. But this argument feel like it’s big oil propaganda.

In order to get MORE people to switch to EVs, I think extra incentives to reduce overall cost wil help the push. Once the paradigm has shifted to EVs, then look at extra taxes. Adding extra taxes now is just silly.


----------



## MelindaV

slicknick13 said:


> most EV's don't pay a road tax


that is a state-to-state thing (much as the gas tax is), and there are many states that actually end up collecting MORE from EVs than their equal gas car.


----------



## SalisburySam

MelindaV said:


> that is a state-to-state thing (much as the gas tax is), and there are many states that actually end up collecting MORE from EVs than their equal gas car.


Flat $130 per EV per year in North Carolina at registration time. Once for my LEAF, once for my Model 3.


----------



## MelindaV

SalisburySam said:


> Flat $130 per EV per year in North Carolina at registration time. Once for my LEAF, once for my Model 3.


Currently $150/year here in addition to the standard registration fees
Georgia, with one of the lowest gas taxes, is $213.


----------



## MarkB

Gas taxes have been an approximation for road wear & tear. Heavier vehicles typically use more fuel, as do vehicles that travel more.

Yearly fees make no sense, since the vehicle that travels constantly pays the same as the vehicle that stays parked most of the time.

My car is useless without roads, and I don’t mind paying for them. I don’t intend to be a freeloader. 

Suppose the fairest method might be a (cost per kg) x (weight in kg) x (distance travelled). 

There would still be the issue of cross jurisdictional drivers, and who pays what. Where I live, there is a significant number of folks that regularly go to Washington state for gas, as the savings are significant (last month gas was about $1.50 per liter locally, versus about $1.10 in the USA). 

There is no perfect system.


----------



## RonAz

Really pretty simple and should not require any more government employees.
When you buy your EV you report the odometer when you license, new or used. For example you would pay a $100 road use fee for 10,000 miles. Next year when you license you show you phone or email a screen shot with the Vin and mileage for the previous year. If you drove 8,000 miles you get a 20% discount and pay $80 for the next year. If you drove 14,000 miles you would pay a 40% premium for $140 for the upcoming year. 
Every year starts the calculation over again. If you sell during the year you get a prorated refund and the new owner starts out at a $100 again.
You could have different rates for a 3,000# car vs. a 5,000# car, but probably not worth it for the wear of a car on 4 tires.
Pickups and trucks would most likely have different rates bases on weight. Studded tires $100 x 10. Studdless winter tires no penalty.
My 2 cents, except Canada would have to be 1 nickel.


----------



## Karl Sun

RonAz said:


> Really pretty simple and should not require any more government employees.
> When you buy your EV you report the odometer when you license, new or used. For example you would pay a $100 road use fee for 10,000 miles. Next year when you license you show you phone or email a screen shot with the Vin and mileage for the previous year. If you drove 8,000 miles you get a 20% discount and pay $80 for the next year. If you drove 14,000 miles you would pay a 40% premium for $140 for the upcoming year.
> Every year starts the calculation over again. If you sell during the year you get a prorated refund and the new owner starts out at a $100 again.
> You could have different rates for a 3,000# car vs. a 5,000# car, but probably not worth it for the wear of a car on 4 tires.
> Pickups and trucks would most likely have different rates bases on weight. Studded tires $100 x 10. Studdless winter tires no penalty.
> My 2 cents, except Canada would have to be 1 nickel.


 The concept is sound, but the numbers are totally inadequate.

To actually pay for road maintenance, the fees would need to be orders of magnitude higher. And taxing less than 1% of road cars (i.e. EVs) wouldn't even be a tiny dent in most states multi-billion-dollar yearly shortfall.


----------



## RonAz

The numbers were just meant to to make the math simple, no relationship to the real world. Except for here in Arizona, I paid $100 for 4 years registration. No emmissions checks saves another $78 over the four years.
This is offset by having to put in my own gas station, chargeing station, for $1060 though.


----------



## SR22pilot

MelindaV said:


> Currently $150/year here in addition to the standard registration fees
> Georgia, with one of the lowest gas taxes, is $213.


Yes. $213 for my EV when I paid about $98 a year in taxes for my ICE.

Here there are emissions stations. Have them charge $5 to record and report odometersettings. Eliminate gas tax. Everyone pays based on mileage. Separately I would like to see a carbon tax on gasoline to reflect environmental damage. However, I won't hold my breath.


----------



## mswlogo

I agree we have to pay some how. Even if trucks disproportionately damage more we should pay roughly what ICE vehicles are paying in road taxes.

Actually if I recall Clinton tried to pass a bill in Arkansas to tax cars by weight. He got lamb basted. I think it’s a good idea.

People have hard time realizing the Benifits we have and need to pay our share. 

Those trucks are doing things like delivery parts for our EV and solar panels.

It should probably be done through a meter on your charging setup.


----------



## Mosess

It appears that too many of my fellow posters here are too eager to submit to additional taxes. How about this scenario?

EVs do not add to healthcare costs the way ICE cars do. ICE cars pollute the air with fumes while driving and by the mere fact that so much oil is needed and constantly replaced and wasted, the production of which causes so much devastation on the environments surrounding these processing plants and don't even get me started on refineries.
Simply by not using a liquid fuel, the EV will cause fewer trucks on the road by gas stations closing down and no longer needing daily fuel replenishment deliveries. Imagine 75-80% of all fuel tankers gone from public roads. So instead of the power having to be delivered on an ICE burning truck, it comes to you via permanently installed wiring that hardly ever needs any maintenance.
EVs tend to be far superior in technological integration and therefore much safer overall. This will translate in fewer lives lost due to issues that are caused by people driving tired and not paying attention. I know many ICE vehicles are now stocked with many of these active safety features but nothing to the level of Teslas product.
EVs tend to rarely need brake pad and rotor replacements (At the very worst, it last twice as long as on ICE and at best for the life of the car) which translates into less raw materials processed and fewer rotors smelted and CNCd which, on an industrial scale, means that several large brake factories would not be needed anymore.
I can go on with many more things that are subtle yet on a grand scale produce massive added efficiencies to the worldwide transportation infrastructure and its supporting industries.

Much of this will translate into reduced healthcare costs (look up studies of asthma and other auto-immune disease correlating to people growing up near major highways), and on that merit alone EV owners should not have to pay any additional taxes. Rather, ICE owners should have added costs for all the environmental and public health damage they're indirectly causing.

As for paying for road mainatanace, there are already plenty of funds for this in federal and state governments. If only politicians were a little less corrupt and stop raiding those funds in exchange for votes.

[mod edit: unrelated political opinion removed]


----------



## GDN

I don't think anyone is too eager to submit more tax, I think we have to realize that in 20 to 30 years some believe we could be driving a majority of electric vehicles. Per Wikipedia, the total gas tax in the US averages 27 or 28 cents per gallon up to over 75 cents per gallon. Most of those funds at one time were likely earmarked for road construction and maintenance (some states have allowed them to be robbed for other projects), but with so many EV owners not buying gas, those will surely drop or at least stay steady while more and more cars are on the roads and are not paying those taxes. We've got to keep the roads up some way, and an offset to health benefits (or anything else) isn't going to keep the roads built.

I'm really surprised Texas didn't figure this out and implement a tax before anyone else.


----------



## EValuatED

Well, we’ve been paying in Virginia, if memory serves... an annual license tax of $64 per EV registered in the state. It’s included with our registration fees and must be paid at the time of registration and each renewal. Also, if you have (like me) “special fuel” license plates (with my fuel being nelectrons now, lol) that has allowed use if HOV2/3 lanes by hybrids & EVs, etc., over the last 15 years or so (sadly now being replaced by HOV3/EZPass Toll lanes, one of which is ridiculously high priced) there’s an additional annual fee for each vehicle of $25. $15 which goes to the Virginia State Police HOV-Enforcement fund (perhaps for fuel to chase down violators; surely a joke/pun in there somewhere). I fully exp3ct these to be ratched up as more EVs are registered, given that tax collections rarely ever shrink over time.


----------



## ADK46

Where I live, the roads crumble due to freeze-thaw cycles primarily, aggravated by heavy vehicles. Bridges corrode due to the use of salt. There’s certainly some cost per year to maintain them, no matter whether there are few or many EVs. The money available is already inadequate, and EV’s will make the situation worse.

Count me as someone who thinks fuel taxes should go up for this and other reasons (e.g., discouraging use), but the trick is to do it without sparking a revolt, or unduly punishing those who can only afford old gas cars. Raise taxes only as fuel costs decreases. Make purchases of low value used cars exempt from sales tax.


----------



## Wooloomooloo

Feathermerchant said:


> I think annual mileage and vehicle weight would be the fairest. The stats could be gathered at each state inspection then used to come up with a fair tax rate.
> The gasoline tax would then be eliminated.


This is a really interesting topic - I know some points have been made after this one, but I wanted to pick up on it.

First off, the tax on gas here in the US is pathetically small compared with most countries, and there isn't an annual 'vehicle tax' like there is in most European countries, and that's why the roads here look like they've been carpet-bombed by the RAF.

The problem with the 'mileage' based approach, is that it will penalize poorer people living in rural communities, who don't have access to public transportation and are car-bound. I live in NYC and don't have to use my car to commute, but I drive an $80k car just for the sheer pleasure of it. Would it be fair for me to pay less tax than some poor guy in Idaho who drives a 10-year old Honda 40 miles every day to work, with no alternatives and who is probably making 10% of what I make annually?

Usage tax (or consumption tax) is inherently regressive and unfair.

What I would suggest is taxing cars the same ways you tax properties, based on purchase price, cost to the environment (in materials and greenhouse gases) and size *every year*. Most European countries do this, which has resulted in people generally buying smaller, greener cars (ahem... if you ignore the whole thing around diesel!) This could be done at the state and/or Federal level. For an average person this should be about $150 - $300 a year. Commercial vehicles could be 5 - 10x that and really small vehicles, bikes etc could be 10% of that, and it could be free for people in certain income brackets, the elderly, handicapped or other special cases.

EV's will pay their fair share, and states could provide incentives for people driving greener cars (as they should) because the future cost of burning dead trees and dinosaurs is immeasurably high.


----------



## SR22pilot

Wooloomooloo said:


> This is a really interesting topic - I know some points have been made after this one, but I wanted to pick up on it.
> 
> First off, the tax on gas here in the US is pathetically small compared with most countries, and there isn't an annual 'vehicle tax' like there is in most European countries, and that's why the roads here look like they've been carpet-bombed by the RAF.
> 
> The problem with the 'mileage' based approach, is that it will penalize poorer people living in rural communities, who don't have access to public transportation and are car-bound. I live in NYC and don't have to use my car to commute, but I drive an $80k car just for the sheer pleasure of it. Would it be fair for me to pay less tax than some poor guy in Idaho who drives a 10-year old Honda 40 miles every day to work, with no alternatives and who is probably making 10% of what I make annually?
> 
> Usage tax (or consumption tax) is inherently regressive and unfair.
> 
> What I would suggest is taxing cars the same ways you tax properties, based on purchase price, cost to the environment (in materials and greenhouse gases) and size *every year*. Most European countries do this, which has resulted in people generally buying smaller, greener cars (ahem... if you ignore the whole thing around diesel!) This could be done at the state and/or Federal level. For an average person this should be about $150 - $300 a year. Commercial vehicles could be 5 - 10x that and really small vehicles, bikes etc could be 10% of that, and it could be free for people in certain income brackets, the elderly, handicapped or other special cases.
> 
> EV's will pay their fair share, and states could provide incentives for people driving greener cars (as they should) because the future cost of burning dead trees and dinosaurs is immeasurably high.


The current system effectively charges by miles drive i.e. gas burned. A mileage system taxes those who drive the most i.e. the people who use the roads the most pay the most. Right now I pay a fixed $213 EV fee even if I were to drive 10 miles in a year. When I drove an ICE car I paid about $98 a year in gas taxes. I am not happy with the present situation.


----------



## Feathermerchant

We should exclusively tax the visitors.......


----------



## Wooloomooloo

SR22pilot said:


> The current system effectively charges by miles drive i.e. gas burned. A mileage system taxes those who drive the most i.e. the people who use the roads the most pay the most. Right now I pay a fixed $213 EV fee even if I were to drive 10 miles in a year. When I drove an ICE car I paid about $98 a year in gas taxes. I am not happy with the present situation.


Well it's clear that the revenue from gas tax doesn't provide enough money to maintain America's roads and increasing tax on gas is a political grenade, so while the theory sounds good, in practice it's not working. I didn't know about your $213 EV fee, is that a state thing?

Personally I think it should be linked somehow to the ability of a person to pay through a regular tax, not based on usage. We have that ridiculous system in healthcare (charge sick people more than healthy people) and it's an inherently selfish and anti-social way to fund something we all rely on. Just because a person doesn't drive a lot, doesn't mean they don't benefit from the existence of roads.


----------



## mswlogo

Wooloomooloo said:


> This is a really interesting topic - I know some points have been made after this one, but I wanted to pick up on it.
> 
> First off, the tax on gas here in the US is pathetically small compared with most countries, and there isn't an annual 'vehicle tax' like there is in most European countries, and that's why the roads here look like they've been carpet-bombed by the RAF.
> 
> The problem with the 'mileage' based approach, is that it will penalize poorer people living in rural communities, who don't have access to public transportation and are car-bound. I live in NYC and don't have to use my car to commute, but I drive an $80k car just for the sheer pleasure of it. Would it be fair for me to pay less tax than some poor guy in Idaho who drives a 10-year old Honda 40 miles every day to work, with no alternatives and who is probably making 10% of what I make annually?
> 
> Usage tax (or consumption tax) is inherently regressive and unfair.
> 
> What I would suggest is taxing cars the same ways you tax properties, based on purchase price, cost to the environment (in materials and greenhouse gases) and size *every year*. Most European countries do this, which has resulted in people generally buying smaller, greener cars (ahem... if you ignore the whole thing around diesel!) This could be done at the state and/or Federal level. For an average person this should be about $150 - $300 a year. Commercial vehicles could be 5 - 10x that and really small vehicles, bikes etc could be 10% of that, and it could be free for people in certain income brackets, the elderly, handicapped or other special cases.
> 
> EV's will pay their fair share, and states could provide incentives for people driving greener cars (as they should) because the future cost of burning dead trees and dinosaurs is immeasurably high.


One thing people don't get is even if you personally don't use the roads directly you still benefit from them. You get deliveries from them, emergency services, might have a business on one, might go to school on one, allows other people to reach you for services. Paying for roads should just come under the basic tax system. Which already accounts for income differences. And might give credits for green cars. As they do.


----------



## Feathermerchant

I'm not in favor of credits for green cars. Green cars do not mean less road maintenance. I am in favor of tax by miles driven and weight of vehicle. If a vehicle comes into your state and does not pay road tax, you have to cover that cost by charging hotel tax, sales tax etc.
Yes people who do not use the roads much benefit thru deliveries, etc. But if you tax the delivery guy, he will pass that on to the buyer of the product. So it works out.


----------



## iChris93

Wooloomooloo said:


> What I would suggest is taxing cars the same ways you tax properties, based on purchase price, cost to the environment (in materials and greenhouse gases) and size *every year*.


In Michigan, it is like that. The annual registration fees are based on the MSRP. EVs have an additional fee.


----------



## EarlyBuyer

Wisconsin has a $100 annual surcharge for EV's. Wisconsin is also an unfriendly state to Tesla; they cannot be sold there, as is the case with some other states.

Neighboring Illinois offers a deep discount for EV's with renewals of $17.50 per year (payable in 2-year installments of $35.00). This compares to ICE passenger car renewals at $101 annually


----------



## SR22pilot

Wooloomooloo said:


> Well it's clear that the revenue from gas tax doesn't provide enough money to maintain America's roads and increasing tax on gas is a political grenade, so while the theory sounds good, in practice it's not working. I didn't know about your $213 EV fee, is that a state thing?
> 
> Personally I think it should be linked somehow to the ability of a person to pay through a regular tax, not based on usage. We have that ridiculous system in healthcare (charge sick people more than healthy people) and it's an inherently selfish and anti-social way to fund something we all rely on. Just because a person doesn't drive a lot, doesn't mean they don't benefit from the existence of roads.


When the Dems got pushed out and the Republicans took over they dumped the $5K state EV tax rebate and added a $213 fee for EV's. Fortunately Tesla already had stores or I am sure they would have tried to stop that too. Saying this makes me feel weird since for years I identified as a fiscally conservative Republican.


----------



## Wooloomooloo

SR22pilot said:


> When the Dems got pushed out and the Republicans took over they dumped the $5K state EV tax rebate and added a $213 fee for EV's. Fortunately Tesla already had stores or I am sure they would have tried to stop that too. Saying this makes me feel weird since for years I identified as a fiscally conservative Republican.


It's not the Party of Reagan or H W Bush anymore, I think a lot of people feel that way.


----------



## JWardell

Wooloomooloo said:


> *Just because a person doesn't drive a lot, doesn't mean they don't benefit from the existence of roads.*


This is a great point and I just wanted to highlight it!


----------



## Gerbopyl

Not sure if anyone else posted this yet but Ohio just passed a bill that includes a yearly registration fee of $200 for all electric vehicles. The bill also included a 10.5 cent increase in the gas tax.

My wife still has a dinosaur powered car so I ran the numbers on what our new taxes with it would be just to see how fair this figure is. Based on our last 6 months of gas consumption we would pay about $138 per year in gas taxes for her car.

It seems many others states already have similar fees but has anyone ever discovered how they come up with these figures?

The Dayton Daily news has an article that I linked below.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...HEAQ&usg=AOvVaw2swlVvUySRa7T_WqOC87Bx&ampcf=1


----------



## JasonF

This is to be expected. With the explosive popularity of Tesla and EV's in general in 2018, the oil lobby is starting to hit back really hard. It means they're scared.


----------



## AJA

I have no issue with them trying to recoup tax revenue to pay for road maintenance but it should not be in excess of what an average driver would pay in a year. In any case, if the oil lobby thinks that by establishing these extra costs it will dissuade people from switching to electric cars, they are sadly mistaken. Having driven 11,000 miles in six months, I do not miss going to the gas station in any way.


----------



## RickO2018

Just received my first tag renewal fee from the Glynn County Tax administrator in GA. My "Alternative Fuel Fee," ostensibly levied to replace lost gasoline taxes, is $340. This includes a $20 "Tag Fee." A year ago when I purchased my M3, it was $256 (pro-rated)! Fuel savings for 2017-2018 as compared to the same period during 2018-2019 was ~$400. Electricity increases (I use a home charger) for the same period increased only $67. However, other vehicle maintenance charges (i.e oil changes) has also gone down. So it seems the GA state/county does get back much of your savings.


----------



## SR22pilot

RickO2018 said:


> Just received my first tag renewal fee from the Glynn County Tax administrator in GA. My "Alternative Fuel Fee," ostensibly levied to replace lost gasoline taxes, is $340. This includes a $20 "Tag Fee." A year ago when I purchased my M3, it was $256 (pro-rated)! Fuel savings for 2017-2018 as compared to the same period during 2018-2019 was ~$400. Electricity increases (I use a home charger) for the same period increased only $67. However, other vehicle maintenance charges (i.e oil changes) has also gone down. So it seems the GA state/county does get back much of your savings.


Can you break out where this came from? My EV fee was $213. All other fees were the same as my old ICE (i.e. $20 tag fee).


----------



## RickO2018

SR22pilot said:


> Can you break out where this came from? My EV fee was $213. All other fees were the same as my old ICE (i.e. $20 tag fee).


Only info I have is what's on my bill: Taxable Value: $43,775.00; Tag Fee: $20.00; Alternative Fuel Fee: $319.27; Mail Fee: $1.00 = $340.27


----------

