Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, because big oil is losing money on EVs and therefore so are the fat cat politicians in big oil's pocket, we now get to deal with BS like this. Many states have already adopted fees and more are on the way, including my home state of Arizona. I guess I won't complain too much since I save money in several other ways, including the $7500 federal incentive. Arizona should increase the gas tax as we have one of the lowest prices of gas in the country, not screw the EV drivers.

State Bills, Likely Backed By Big Oil, Take Aim At Drivers Of Electric Cars

It comes as no surprise that, as electric cars begin to catch on at a more steady clip, states are imposing fees to “green-friendly” drivers. The argument is that those drivers aren’t purchasing gas, thus not paying the gas tax, and EVs are the reason that gas tax revenue is on the decline.

This information is hardly true, since gas tax revenue has been on the decline since long before electric vehicles started becoming popular. Even today, EVs make up less than one percent of vehicle market share globally, so the impact is intangible. States couldn’t pay for road projects long before electric cars. However, oil industry backed groups like the Koch Brothers and*American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are making sure that state lawmakers believe that EVs are to blame.

Gas cars today are much more efficient than they once were, and most states haven’t raised the gas tax in ages. It is not set today to cover the massive inflation that has taken hold since the gas tax was introduced in 1957. The money coming in only covers about 40 percent of project costs, and there is no way that the 60 percent loss is caused by a few electric vehicles. But, states are looking for a way to make up the gap, and charging fees to EV owners is part of many states’ plans.

Just this year,*Montana, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Tennessee, have added a fee of up to $180 per year.*Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Washington, Virginia, Nebraska, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, and Michigan already have fees ranging from $50 to $300 annually. Arkansas and Arizona are working on setting fees in place.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,252 Posts
that's a tad short sighted by states, but it is the trouble when budgets rely on a single short sighted source of income (gas taxes)


here in the UK, suddenly from 1st April all cars will pay a flat rate road tax / VED with only the 1st year based on emissions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
While it is certainly true that EV users are not paying taxes into roads via gas taxes, this loss is negligible right now with EVs far below 1% of call vehicles, and negligible even if you project some years out (in the US).

However, just as farmers have to take colored gas and diesel to avoid road taxes on off road use of farm vehicles proper tax collection, there has to be a mechanism for all road users as things will change. EV buses, and trucks are a coming thing, as are alternative fuels like hydrogen and electricity. Assuming Trump doesn't cut EPA mpg mandates, vehicles will continuing to become more efficient in most sizes, and the increasing numbers of hybrid models are also reducing collected gas taxes.

So consideration of how to fund roads going forward is being considered not only by individual states, but by other countries. That is what government does.

It is a tricky proposition as there is also a public interest in reducing CO2 and gasoline consumption. Obviously the public interest would be well served by a dramatic increase in gas taxes, bringing inflation adjusted amounts back up to where they were in the 1970's. This would reverse the trend to ever bigger SUVs and trucks in the US to more fuel efficient vehicles, and at least in the short term, fully fund road and bridge building and maintenance. This has been obvious for 40 years now, but is politically impossible with the no new tax crowd who is now in control in most states and the federal government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Not only that, but where I live in El Paso, the sole electric power utility company is trying to levy a surcharge on people who install solar panels on the roofs of their homes! Solar is a natural energy source here because we have an average of 297 sunny days per year. There's been a big uproar, but the pessimist in me is pretty sure the company will get away with it.

Pay a penalty for being energy-efficient and trying to conserve resources--where else but in America?

Maybe nationwide toll roads are the answer. If you use 'em, pay for their upkeep. If not, have a nice life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
Again, conflicting interests of lower CO2 emissions (with state and federal incentives driving past to install home solar), and the need for a highly regulated business to not lose money (cannot afford to fail, or citizens will suffer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
... Arizona should increase the gas tax as we have one of the lowest prices of gas in the country, not screw the EV drivers...
First, making BEVs and other alternate fuel vehicles help pay for the roads they use is not "screwing EV drivers". It is the gasoline and diesel users that are getting screwed when they have to pay for roads that alt-fuel vehicles use for free. That should stop.

I think the fairest way to charge for the roads is a per-mile fee, however it's harder to implement that and you give up privacy that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Yes, the age old problem... the rich want to hold onto their money and make more at the expense of the rest of the population. The shareholders want more and more every year. Whenever you want the real answer, you need to ask yourself what the problem is, several times. Then you get to the root cause and there is usually money behind it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
First, making BEVs and other alternate fuel vehicles help pay for the roads they use is not "screwing EV drivers". It is the gasoline and diesel users that are getting screwed when they have to pay for roads that alt-fuel vehicles use for free. That should stop.
Oh, no, that's where you're wrong. I'd definitely be getting screwed. I ran the math and I drove 56,000 miles in 2 years. Do you know how much I paid in state gas tax during that 2 years? Approximately $225. If these morons in my state charge $300 per year as some other states have elected, which I'm sure Arizona will (AZ loves, loves, loves it's taxes), then I'm paying nearly 3 times as much as I was before. Not only that, I'll be driving probably half as much in my EV due to not going on long trips due to EV range, which doubles the amount I get screwed again.

I'm all for road upkeep and paying my part, but as the title says, EV drivers would be punished because I shouldn't have to pay 5-6x the cost as a non-EV driver. It should be comparable to what everyone else pays and as you said, it should be based on mileage to keep it fair. You also need to consider I'm still paying taxes and fees on my electric bill and exhorbant fees for using charging stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
I think the fairest way to charge for the roads is a per-mile fee
Although once discussed in the corridors of power, that argument cannot apply here in the UK.

Drivers here are taxed four ways;
First there is the tax on the purchase of the vehicle itself.
Second, there is the annual Road Fund Licence - originally conceived to help pay for the road infrastructure but now 'just another tax'.
Third, fuel duty is added to each litre of fuel (currently just over 56p / $0.69 per litre)
Lastly, VAT at 20% is added to the combined price of the fuel itself plus the fuel duty.

None of the above taxes are earmarked for road maintenance, it all goes into the giant gubberment pot.
To charge for road usage per mile, they would have to remove significant portions of the above to justify it, and that would just be too much of a hit for them to take!

Pure EV (BEV) drivers do still benefit from concessions, i.e there is no RFL to pay and a grant against the purchase price, but the grant has reduced in recent times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
In car reviews, it seems to me that I hear of a couple of other taxes in the UK as well. CO2, and (can't remember the right word) congestion (London center). Both of which electric cars are exempt from. And of course, like most countries, your income is taxed before you purchase fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
Alien-S, I think politicians use the same gimmicks the world over to steal money. They take money for one thing and spend it on another--mostly to get re-elected. I could go on and on but I don't want to turn this into a political thread.

In a perfect world, we'd pay for road use by the mile because it would let market forces help regulate traffic. A per-mile charge would permit premiums or discounts for time-of-use too. For example, a restaurant or movie theater charges more at certain times than others which encourages people to come at less busy times. A per-mile charge would charge a premium to use certain busy routes and charge a premium to use the busy routes at the busiest times. This encourages everyone to stay off those routes unless they absolutely need them and especially stay off them at peak-use times. At the same time, there's a strong profit incentive to make more lanes/roads etc. where they are most needed. A fuel tax doesn't let this happen at all. The big disadvantage of a per-mile tax is loss of privacy because to be billed, they'd have to know where you were and at what times.

The gasoline/diesel tax is painting itself into a corner. The higher it gets, the more it will push people to alternate fuels which means higher gasoline/diesel taxes, etc. in a positive feedback loop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Alien-S, I think politicians use the same gimmicks the world over to steal money. They take money for one thing and spend it on another--mostly to get re-elected. I could go on and on but I don't want to turn this into a political thread.

In a perfect world, we'd pay for road use by the mile because it would let market forces help regulate traffic. A per-mile charge would permit premiums or discounts for time-of-use too. For example, a restaurant or movie theater charges more at certain times than others which encourages people to come at less busy times. A per-mile charge would charge a premium to use certain busy routes and charge a premium to use the busy routes at the busiest times. This encourages everyone to stay off those routes unless they absolutely need them and especially stay off them at peak-use times. At the same time, there's a strong profit incentive to make more lanes/roads etc. where they are most needed. A fuel tax doesn't let this happen at all. The big disadvantage of a per-mile tax is loss of privacy because to be billed, they'd have to know where you were and at what times.

The gasoline/diesel tax is painting itself into a corner. The higher it gets, the more it will push people to alternate fuels which means higher gasoline/diesel taxes, etc. in a positive feedback loop.
You're not wrong ;)
The Gubberment has had it too good for too long, over here certainly. Increase after increase in fuel duty failed to stop people filling up so it was seen as a cash cow. Further planned rises over the last few years however, have been scrapped over fears it would slow the economy and push up inflation.

Just as you have toll roads over there, so do we although only one (other than bridges) is of any significance (the M6 toll). The charges are far too high so the private operators keep losing money and the positive feedback loop that you mention has already begun. It's pretty much a ghost road nowadays.

My experience of your toll roads is that they are pretty much pay-per-mile already because the further you go, the more toll booths you pass through. And your turnpikes charge you when you get off, dependent upon where you got on.

In car reviews, it seems to me that I hear of a couple of other taxes in the UK as well. CO2, and (can't remember the right word) congestion (London center). Both of which electric cars are exempt from. And of course, like most countries, your income is taxed before you purchase fuel.
Yes, you mean the London Congestion Charge. I always use the train if I go into London, so having an EV doesn't really help me. But as my car is a company car, the tax benefits are still very significant. When I went from a diesel to my current PHEV, it left me with £130 ($160) less tax to pay each month.

My monthly utility bill is less than £130 per month for both gas and electricity, so my tax savings alone more than pay for all my energy usage, including the electricity that goes into my PHEV. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
The gasoline/diesel tax is painting itself into a corner. The higher it gets, the more it will push people to alternate fuels which means higher gasoline/diesel taxes, etc. in a positive feedback loop.
From what I seen they want to push people into city centers and overall move them in such a way they take up less of a footprint as a whole. That's what all these carbon taxes and sustainability efforts and so on are amounting to.

Don't be surprised if the next thing they tax heavily will be meat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
But as my car is a company car, the tax benefits are still very significant. When I went from a diesel to my current PHEV, it left me with £130 ($160) less tax to pay each month.

My monthly utility bill is less than £130 per month for both gas and electricity, so my tax savings alone more than pay for all my energy usage, including the electricity that goes into my PHEV. :)
You have two concepts here that I don't understand (nor other Americans I suspect). Why is the tax savings to you personally better with a company car versus personal? And what does your utility bill have to do with taxes on cars?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
...I guess I won't complain too much since I save money in several other ways, including the $7500 federal incentive...
Be careful of the $7500 amount. The full amount is only available if you manage your taxes in such a way that you owe $7500 or more at the end of the year. That is, if you owe $400 at the end of the year, that's your BEV credit. If the IRS owes you at the end of the year, your BEV credit is $0. The credit can't be carried forward or applied backward to other tax years.

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2...if-what-i-have-to-pay-is-less-than-the-credit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Be careful of the $7500 amount. The full amount is only available if you manage your taxes in such a way that you owe $7500 or more at the end of the year. That is, if you owe $400 at the end of the year that's your BEV credit. If the IRS owes you at the end of the year, your BEV credit is $0. The credit can't be carried forward or applied backward to other tax years.

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2...if-what-i-have-to-pay-is-less-than-the-credit
I thought you'd give me more credit than that. Pun intended. I've already worked out the numbers and next year we will get the full credit or worst case, very close to. It is worth it in our situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
Funny.

But it is too bad that high earners get advantage of tax breaks that the hoi polloi are not eligible for. There is a strong case for refundable credits. For example, first time home buyers in 2009 got a $7,500 refundable credit for their help in stimulating the economy. But your credit had to be amazing to get a loan that year. Poor timing on my part to buy my first home in 2008 - I got an interest free loan of $7,500 which I'm repaying on my tax return at $500 a year. I didn't even need the loan but it seemed foolish not to take it.

Seems like there is a public interest in having refundable BEV credits no matter your tax status.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I agree, I think everyone should get to take the full amount as a refund and not a tax reduction credit only. But those folks probably won't be buying such an expensive car anyway and if they do, they still have options such as a lease, which I may still actually do due to depreciation. The bank will take the 10k if I buy in California which anyone can do and it makes the car more affordable. Heck, it might be worth it to lease from Colorado and save even more. But California has the free maintenance, charging and unlimited mileage too.

I'm still a little torn between the hybrid and EV because of the price difference. I have to drive the hybrid first and if I like it well enough and as reviewers say, the acceleration is different and better than the Niro, I might just bite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Pay a penalty for being energy-efficient and trying to conserve resources--where else but in America?
In Spain! :crying:

We have that kind of taxes just because big oil companies don't want to decrease its huge ammount of money they earn every year.... And I don't know why, but politicians that make that kind of laws end their carreers working in that companies earning a lot of money...

In Spain we have a lot of sun, wind and coasts, and we had a good green energy industry, but that was ten or fifteen years ago...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
You have two concepts here that I don't understand (nor other Americans I suspect). Why is the tax savings to you personally better with a company car versus personal? And what does your utility bill have to do with taxes on cars?
Fair questions...

If, as part of our remuneration package\salary, our employer provides us with a vehicle (a 'company car'), it is seen by the taxman as a taxable benefit and we have to pay income tax on a percentage of the car's list price (MSP). The percentage of that MSP that we have to pay tax on is set by the emissions figure for the car in question, and varies from 7% up to 37% dependent upon the CO2 figure.
For example, if the car has a list price of £30k and a CO2 figure of 130g/km, we would pay tax on 23% of the MSP which means paying income tax at usual rates (20% for the average Jo) on £6,900 which equates to an extra £1,380 per year we have to hand over to the taxman.

By contrast, an EV or Hybrid with emissions below 50g/km is rated at only 7% of that MSP, meaning on a car costing the same £30k we would only need to pay tax on £2,100 which is £420.00! BIG difference.

Now my utility bill is relevant because by charging an EV up at home each night, my electricity bill goes up.
However, my point is that by switching to a plug-in from a diesel car, the savings I made in tax more than paid for my entire home energy bill for the year, not just the extra juice going into the car. Plus I have little or no petrol costs for the car either (previously two and a half fill-ups per week at between £65 and £70 each time).

So one way of looking at when compared to my previous E-Class diesel, is that by switching to an EV, the taxman pays for my entire home energy usage (obviously including the electricity going into the car) and I no longer have to buy petrol or diesel - ever!
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top