Electric car owners to pay taxes??

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LIVEFRMNYC, May 10, 2013.

  1. quagmire, May 10, 2013
    Last edited: May 10, 2013

    quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #2
  2. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    As fuel tax is used for transportation infrastructure, then yes, we need a way to levy tax on vehicles of any fuel source if they utilize said infrastructure.

    Of course a more fair way to levy the tax would be a tax per mile driven (adjusted for class/weight of the car/truck).
     
  3. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #4
  4. LIVEFRMNYC thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #5

    So should they put extra tax on motorbikes for the insane mpg it gets?

    One point on that link was that the electric car tax would make it much harder to persuade interest to drive one. The amount of electric cars on the road is probably less than 1%. How is taxing them going to help any vs do more harm in the progression of electric cars?

    If the city/state wants more money, they such start enforcing bike laws and ticket cyclists who past red lights since they use the roads too.
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    Agreed.

    I'm sure that the tax is less than what they would spend on gasoline in a year.
     
  6. TPadden macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    #7
    Just like for health care, any additional tax should be by gross weight :D!
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    Motorcycles do not really get "insane mpg", most of them it is pretty pathetic. But they put a fair bit less wear-and-tear on the roads. That is the basic logic of the fuel tax, that the more you use, the more you are beating up on the roads. Big, heavy vehicles use more fuel, pay more tax and pound more on the roads. Driving faster causes more wear on the road and uses more fuel, hence more tax. With electric cars, these metrics do not come into play, unless the state were somehow to mandate charge-logging so they could tax the juice going into the car.

    In the end, though, the fuel tax is nowhere near sufficient to cover road maintenance. If it were, US drivers would be paying European gas prices. Fuel tax only goes toward highways, most local roads are funded by property tax (which tend to be the roads bicyclists use anyway).
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Gas prices here fund a lot more than just the roads ;). I agree that electric cars should pay a contribution.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    The problem here is I don't know if fuel taxes even fund the roads. The money seems to get sucked away for other pet projects.
     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    I think they should levy higher taxes on 18 wheelers since them and the corporations employing them are the ones causing the real damage to the highways.
     
  11. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #12
    Do you really want consumer products to be more expensive than they are?

    In any case, I thought all the liberals here were all about people paying their fair share...You use the roads, you pay taxes regardless of the vehicle you drive.
     
  12. TPadden, May 11, 2013
    Last edited: May 11, 2013

    TPadden macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    #13
    As long as it's only Samsung and HTC products, not :apple:! :eek:

    Amazing how it works - tax electric cars and motorcycles more and you tax consumers; tax 18 wheelers and the corporations employing them and somehow you aren't taxing consumers anymore :D.
     
  13. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    That seems awfully low.
     
  14. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #15
    Absolutely correct.

    Heavy consumer products probably should be more expensive than they are now, if they are transported by truck. Trains are much more efficient. But, to be revenue neutral, let's cut sales taxes. Overall prices go down, heavy items go up. That should appeal to anyone with Libertarian tendencies who wants a level playing field.

    But, it isn't fair for people to pay the same amount. Trucks cause vastly more wear and tear on roads, trucking industry propaganda to the contrary. Vastly more. Fuel taxes are good as a carbon tax, but, trucks need a lot of extra tax to level the playing field.

    Yes, you read that correctly. A heavy semi causes over 19 times as much wear and tear on per mile driven than the average car.

    http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/321/

    (And, an overloaded semi causes even more. In fact, overloaded semis sometimes cause catastrophic damage to roads not designed for heavy trucks.)

    Despite the fact that out of roughly 2.5 Trillion miles driven every year by cars in the U.S., the roughly 140 Billion miles driven by semis every year cause more wear.

    http://www.roadscholar.com/blog/billions-of-miles-driven-every-year-dot-announces/

    It seems high to me. In stop and go driving, your "24.6" MPG car is often actually only 12 MPG. People like to brag about their new car's highway mileage, but, unless it is either very light, or, a hybrid, its city efficiency is probably rather poor.
     
  15. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #16
    Right...because there are trains all over the US that stop at everywhere and anywhere...

    Sorry to disappoint, but the layout of the US is not conducive to moving freight all over the place..Sure, there are rail hubs that are somewhat centralized, but you still need heavy trucks to get items from the rail terminals to stores.
     
  16. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    There you go again with the L word. This was going to be addressed at some point. It's just an issue of whether they address it somewhat early on like they wish to at the moment or later. Either way they need to pay for roads somehow.


    The centralization aspect relies on transportation costs. Things like centralized farming would not be as appealing to businesses if transportation costs were much higher. I should look up how it works out in countries with higher fuel costs. Fruit and vegetables are much more expensive in some countries.
     
  17. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #18
    Over here we pay massive taxes on fuel. Plus the vehical has to be taxed (road tax). Where does that money go?? Hmm looking at the state of the roads I'd say the big bloody pot at the end of the rainbow.
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    I buy most of my produce locally so you are god damn right I want products that have to be shipped in to be more expensive. Helps my local farmers, and costs me less in taxes.
     
  19. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #20
    You do realize not everyone has access to locally grown produce don't you?

    So you basically feel that ordinary citizens should be "punished" by paying more for items because they live in areas where those items aren't available locally? thats just fantastic.
     
  20. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #21
    Way off topic , you two, but:

    1) There is an additional transportation cost included in the price of food produced far away that is...
    2) More than offset by the economy of scale of agribusiness that the local farmer (if one eve has a local farmer) can't match.

    However both should pay their respective part for use of transportation infrastructure.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    AFAIK in the US fuel taxes are used exclusively for the roads.
     
  22. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Yes. I have lived in rural and urban areas and both have had farmers markets. How do you think people survived before walmart came in and destroyed local economies?

    If you want produce from across the country you should pay more for them.
     
  23. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #24
    Road tax here - which is supposed to be used to "maintain" roads - is based entirely on engine emissions.

    Which, IMO, is BS. How does an electric car cause less damage to tarmac, bridges etc.
     
  24. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #25
    Less damage to the environment.
     

Share This Page