By on September 11, 2019

With electric-vehicle owners eligible for sizable tax breaks, and ineligible for federal fuel taxes, it often feels like they’re not pulling their weight when it comes to maintaining this great nation’s transportation infrastructure. However, feelings are sometimes wrong — when it feels like an Arby’s night, for example.

There are actually 26 states that presently impose fees upon EV owners and, according to Consumer Reports, 11 charge more than the amount drivers of similar, gas-powered cars pay in gas taxes, with 3 charging more than twice the average amount. Another dozen states are considering adding fees, with CR’s own research stipulating that 10 would require electrics to pay more than they would if they were powered by gasoline. 

Done evenhandedly, that sounds relatively fair to us. But the consumer advocacy outlet suggested this could discourage future growth of the technology. “People should be allowed to choose a vehicle that’s safe, reliable, and better for the environment without being punished,” Shannon Baker-Branstetter, manager of cars and energy policy at Consumer Reports, said in a statement.

She claimed that taxing EVs wouldn’t improve state road spending shortfalls (because they aren’t purchased in great numbers) and would be unfair to the average family trying to save money on gas by buying an EV.

We’re not going to get heavy into the logistics, but the environmental impact of electric cars relies heavily on what you buy, how long you keep the vehicle, where you charge it, how much driving you do, and what happens to the car once it’s no longer useful. Anyone who tells you differently, is trying to sell you something — probably an EV. But that doesn’t mean those vehicles can’t be an ecological blessing. A smart shopper, who also lives in a region that sources a lot of renewable energy, can probably brag about their carbon footprint without being a gigantic hypocrite. They would not be much fun at parties, though.

From Consumer Reports:

For the analysis, CR compared existing and proposed EV fees with how much in gasoline sales tax the average driver pays over a year in each of the states. In most states that have them, EV fees are paid annually by the vehicle owners.

In Missouri, there’s a proposal to increase the existing EV fee to three times what the owner of a gas-powered car would pay next year in the state, and the fee would increase to four times the amount by 2025, according to CR’s analysis.

Missouri’s proposed EV fee was set with the help of state senate research staff and experts at the state transportation department, says Senator Gary Romine, who was the main sponsor of the legislation. Most transportation funding in Missouri comes from a consumption tax on gasoline, says Romine, who serves as vice chairman of the state Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee.

Missouri’s plan is probably the most aggressive example. In fact, several states have recently tapped down the fees after receiving blowback from citizens and various advocacy groups. But what happens as EVs become more popular? Surely, it’s not fair to have gas-burners shouldering the burden of keeping America’s roads pothole free less riddled with giant craters by themselves.

Vermont seems to have an answer. After proposing a plan that would have mandated annual fees on electric cars, the state’s Agency of Transportation became worried that the move would discourage early adopters — something it says would conflict with the state’s longterm climate and energy goals. The revised plan is to wait until electrics make up 15 percent of the state’s total vehicle registrations before taxing them. Vermont has also been finalizing a plan to further increase EV incentives for households that make less than $92,000 annually. It’s supposed to launch next year.

The CR study cites numerous examples that showcase the different approaches states are taking to tax (or not tax) electric cars. It also offers counterpoints to a lot of rebuttals you probably have at the ready as to why EVs should be taxed — the perception that they’re primarily bought by wealthy costal folks, for instance.

It’s worth a read if you have any interest in the subject. But it does fall heavy on the side of not taxing electrics. Regardless, we’re curious to hear your takes.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

63 Comments on “How Responsible Are EVs for Maintaining Our Automotive Infrastructure?...”


  • avatar
    volvo

    EVs generate same infrastructure wear as ICE vehicles so taxes to support infrastructure should be comparable. Since PG&E is starting to have trouble delivering adequate electric energy just for homes and industry I can’t imagine the electric distribution infrastructure upgrade that would be needed to support literally millions of EVs in California.

    Oh and by the way CR stopped being a go to place for automotive issues about 30 years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      Alasdair

      Actually, EVs spend so much time charging that there simply is not enough time for them to spend on the road, therefore it’s fair to charge EVs less for infrastructure wear.

      • 0 avatar
        Jon

        huh?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Cool @Alasdair. I’m going to buy a powershift equipped Ford and I should get a tidy refund road tax wise since their “on road” time typically involves a flatbed!

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Most gas cars sit at home and sit at the office most of the time.

        This is the time when EVs charge, too.

        There are a few niche applications where charging is a problem. For instance, traveling salesmen, medical couriers or truck escort vehicles. Those vehicles should remain gas powered.

        But, for the rest of us? Once the carncovers my daily driving (about 30 miles for me) plus a sizeable fudge factor for the unexpected (depends on your personal risk aversion), then you charge it every night like a 4000lb smartphone.

        A 200-mile EV will suit me just fine, as soon as I can get one big enough to haul my 3 kids.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Most gas cars sit at home and sit at the office most of the time.

        This is the time when EVs charge, too.

        There are a few niche applications where charging is a problem. For instance, traveling salesmen, medical couriers or truck escort vehicles. Those vehicles should remain gas powered.

        But, for the rest of us? Once the carncovers my daily driving (about 30 miles for me) plus a sizeable fudge factor for the unexpected (depends on your personal risk aversion), then you charge it every night like a 4000lb smartphone.

        A 200-mile EV will suit me just fine, as soon as I can afford one big enough to haul my 3 kids. A used X or new Y shouldn’t be much of a stretch by this time next year.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    With respect to road funding, they should be taxed equally. A Flat fee or a miles driven tax seem to be the only fair way in my opinion. They shouldn’t have to pay more, but they shouldn’t get a free ride either.

    Better yet, just do away with fuel taxes and ev fees and spread the road costs among everyone. Roads are like schools…you benefit weather you use them or not so let everyone pay for them.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I support this, just put a flat fee on a yearly license renewal with different categories and fees per license GVWR weight limit. I can only drive one vehicle at a time so make me pay for the heaviest vehicle I own and forget about it.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Seems logical

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        That’s what they’re doing now here in Illinois.

        They increased the registration fee for EVs to cover the gas tax contribution, as determined by our political process here in the state..

        Renewing license plates is already expensive here (around $100/yr), so I’m not thrilled about paying twice that when I finally kick the gasoline habit.

        But I basically buy the rationale, so fair enough. I’ll pay it and enjoy my EV, starting next year.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      I’m with you on the first part, but not 100% on the second. Everyone should pay something towards road upkeep, but there should be some way to account for relative causes. Heavy trucks do a hell of a lot more damage to roads than any car does. But the trucking industry would fight tooth and nail against anything to address that.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        Honestly, I think the best solution would to just get rid of gas taxes and instead tax delivery and freight companies. Including the small local delivery companies that Amazon set up.

        The the companies will whine, but they’ll just pass the costs down to consumers anyway. And meanwhile you can pitch the thing as being a boost to local mom and pop shops, and a savings for the working man, while getting a few digs in at Amazon’s expense.

        Roads get paid for, and enthusiasts can drive whatever they want, win win all around.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          The problem with eliminating gas taxes that is that the price of gasoline does not fully represent the cost of using gasoline.

          The price signal in gasoline does not account for the externalities, such as smog, pollution, drilling damage, or and climate effects. This cost is bourne by the bystanders who aren’t involved in the extraction/refining/transportation/purchase/use of the particular tank of gasoline.

          If the price of gasoline accurately reflected its cost, I’d be all over eliminating gas taxes.

          Personally, I’d rather eliminate the income tax (because taxing things discourages them, and everyone loves income), and replace that with a carbon tax. That way, we’d incentive work and income and discourage unnecessary use of gasoline — while letting the power of the market sort out the best way to do the rest.

          Alas, this kind of thinking puts me into Andrew Yang territory.

    • 0 avatar
      ravenuer

      Art: best post so far. I fully agree.

    • 0 avatar
      retrocrank

      Good idea but associate the Road Use Tax with the driver license. In many other areas taxpayers pay to take care of children, the infirm, and the various others who cannot contribute. Extend that philosphy to Road Use, yes we all benefit indirectly, but only drivers benefit directly. So that license to drive is the taxable item.

      If the typical driver covers 10k miles/yr at 20 mpg, that’s 500 gallons, so an annual License Road Use Tax of $250-500 is only marginally more than what is paid in many states over the course of the year without being extreme. Use the extra to replace rusty bridges and cratered roads with safe bridges and good roads, and if there’s any left over, bring back annual driving exams and car inspections – get the dangerous, inept, and ill-prepared off the road.

      Can’t tax cars or car registrations unless you want to punish collectors and businesses, and reward those who drive vehicles owned by other people.

      This doesn’t rule out energy taxes as a tool to manipulate behavior.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Agree retrocrank. I would likely oppose you on those energy taxes, but that is a debate that should be had independent of funding roads and if you win can win that debate at the ballot box, well, that’s America.

      • 0 avatar
        N8iveVA

        What about those that don’t own cars? Just like people that don’t have children pay taxes that go to schools, I think everyone should be paying for the roads, not just those that drive. If you don’t have a car and ride a bike you are still using roads. If you don’t have a car or bike you have postal delivery or Amazon delivery, they all use roads. Everyone benefits from roads whether they have a car or not so everyone should pay. It’s part of being in a society.

        • 0 avatar
          retrocrank

          Not to raise an ugly past spectacle, but a large part of the US population pays little or no tax (beyond sales) yet draws benefits the rest of us pay for. Until the system runs out of money, many (most?) old folks routinely draw more from SS than they paid in. Try and reverse that, you’ll be lynched. It’s the way it is.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            The people who aren’t paying taxes are mostly poor people who are largely left out of American Prosperity. I see no problem with cutting them a break on taxes, and on many other things.

            What was ugly was when Mitt Romney claimed they didn’t have a stake in America because they don’t pay taxes. Poor people are Patriotic Americans too (despite their lack of American Prosperity), and they vote. Americans don’t much like being told they aren’t real Americans. Any politician who engages in this tactic may get a short-term boost, but he or she is ultimately sewing the seeds of their own political demise.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    “11 charge more than the amount drivers of similar, gas-powered cars pay in gas taxes,”

    What is this number based on? If an EV owner is paying more taxes than the already ludicrous amount of taxes I pay a year in fuel taxes than I salute them for driving what they want despite the ridiculous taxes to do so.
    I frankly don’t believe this is the case outside of very certain circumstances, we feel fuel tax on every purchase we make in this country, and frankly we pay too much.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    EV buyers are among the wealthiest segment in the car market, and Lefties want the rich to pay “their fair share” and “spread that wealth around”, which means EVs should have heavy taxes. On the other hand, outside of a few areas where lots of electricity is generated by clean sources (like Norway and France), most dust to dust lifecycle analysis of EVs find they are not actually cleaner than a modern ICV, which means they should get taxed heavily to save the planet from global warming, which the Left is also very concerned about. So whether you are a tree-hugger or a Communist (or both), you should be behind huge taxes on EVs to create a more socially just world full of peace and harmony.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      My 17 year old kid is a bus boy at a Mexican Restaurant when he isn’t finishing High School. He drives a sub 5000 dollar EV (Leaf). Why on God’s Green Earth should he pay more to drive that than my F-150? Cool stereotype though.

      Actually I read somewhere that the most popular vehicle among those making over 250k a year was…wait for it…The Ford F-150.

      You must be in favor of an Ad Valor-em type tax like the last few states I’ve lived in for registration. The more your car is worth, the more you pay.

      Dont mistake that as me endorsing it…I despise paying taxes on a depriciating asset’s value that I had alrady paid sales tax on at purchase. But you’d feel better for sticking those “rich libs” I suppose, like my 17 year old who probably listens to Limbaugh or Michael Savage in his Leaf knowing him.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Don’t worry Art, your kid will be able to afford the EV tax when Bernie, or Liz, or Kamala get elected and enact their $15 minimum wage, free healthcare, and free college, and we are all enjoying the wonderful economic effects of the Green New Deal.

        As the best selling vehicle in the US for the past 30+ years, I expect there are very few demographics where the F-150 is not the most popular vehicle. A recent study by Hedges and Company, however, found that 33% of new truck buyers made over $100K annually, 40% of SUV buyers made over $100K, while 60% of BEV buyers made over $100K.

      • 0 avatar
        Rick Astley

        Art, I find the comparison to a leaf and a F-150 tax rate hilarious.

        It would be a preposterous assumption that you drive the F-150 for work purposes and carrying loads 100% of the time, yet the vehicle is essentially exempt from all emissions due to being a truck. One could argue that most of your operational taxes on the vehicle go to subsidizing and developing technologies to offset or reduce the enormous emissions your vehicle generates.

        As for the Leaf, why shouldn’t it be taxed and at a comparable rate to your F-150? If anything, it started life $7,500 in the hole to the taxpayer, recouping that at the state level for road maintenance (as if the funds wouldn’t be re-allocated to the general fund of political campaigning) seems practical.

        Since you’re speaking anecdotally, i’ll chime in along the same. While taking tailpipe emissions for my 1990 honda civic wagon (with crate motor JDM B18c5r motor) and failing by over 300% of legal emissions limits for a passenger car I genuinely felt like a horrible human being. For all of about 5 minutes. As they re-tested the vehicle I spoke to the gentleman next to me, a Microsoft PM who daily drives a F-150 because he’s a “truck guy”. That truck emitted approximately 4 times what my civic put out and it passed by a massive margin…. Because it’s a “truck”…. Driving to Microsoft. I could not possibly achieve the environmental damage that truck was spewing out, and it was doing it all day, every day.

        So I wouldn’t buy your argument with a 3-day-old-herring. Your truck needs additional taxation put upon it for the massive emissions it generates in the same vein as EV vehicles need to offset their use of the roads AND develop technologies to recycle their horrific batteries.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          My truck is a 2015 model. It puts out far less emissions than your Frankenstein Civic. The standards for the years in question say it does. It could not be sold today if it spewed what your Civic did before you hacked it up. Furthermore all my emissions equipment is functional. Not likely with your swap. Additionally I drive the F150 maybe 3 times a month and on any long trips the family takes, my daily is a Fiesta ST. Even still, if his truck was spewing that much it was old and/or you are full of nonsense. Probably both.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          And BTW, thanks…the general $#!++y nature of Microsoft Operating systems have provided a very nice income for me over the years. What would I do if you guys had any clue about security!

          • 0 avatar
            Daniel J

            Art,

            Keep in mind that part of that tax is going to more EV charging infrastructure across Alabama. Its not simply a road infrastructure tax. I do think it’s a tad high.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Daniel, I don’t consider Alabama’s fee punitive. I think it is still less than most pay in gas taxes. It is at least close. Still i’m not holding my breath on “Infrastructure” and Huntsville is likely the place it would be most likely to happen.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Equip each car with a transponder that communicates VIN, annual miles driven and gross weight via wi-fi or Bluetooth. At license renewal time, you connect to your cell phone and upload the data to the DMV. Your credit card is automatically billed and your sticker arrives in the mail a few days later. Death penalty for anyone tampering with the transponder or data therein.

    (The sticker part could probably be replaced with some sort of automatic indicator light on the rear plate controlled by the on-board transponder establishing to cops that your license is current.)

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Never fly. First off, as a vehicle security guy the thought of plugging a third party device into my vehicle’s CAN bus is a non-starter. Secondly you would likely see that rare moment of unity where conservatives and the ACLU are on the same page fighting the privacy implications (real or imagined).

      But yeah, I am not plugging a wireless device provided by God knows who into the bus that interfaces with my vehicles control systems. Hard pass.

    • 0 avatar
      retrocrank

      And for those of us driving pre-computerized cars, how ya gonna do it?

      Why not incorporate the transponder into the driver license. Anytime GPS detects it moving >15mph it begins transmitting until at <5 mph for more than 10 minutes. We're already constantly tracked via cell phones and surveillance cameras, so where is the further loos of "liberty and freedom?" Better yet, make the driver licence a pay-per-year app on the cell phone, that way you've got tracking built in already and users don't have to carry around yet another thing.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      It doesn’t need to be any more complex than GVWR X miles driven X some constant factor. You don’t need a transponder or realtime data. Just a tamper proof odometer inspected once a year when the plate is renewed.

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      How do you propose to do that with someone who drives a Studebaker or Rambler and doesn’t have a cell phone or a credit card? (I personally know people in that category, so don’t tell me that “there’s nobody like that.”)

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Just put the odometer reading on your state tax forms achieves the same thing, with far intrusion.

      Putting down the wrong number is tax fraud, just like if you were to lie on any other part of the forms.

      Easy. Done.

      A transponder would only make sense for people who mostly drive out of state. In an EV.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Here in Washington, EV owners pay a special EV registration fee that is intended to make up for the gas tax we don’t pay.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    There is a problem here – almost every EV or hybrid purchased received money from some government agency that no ICE qualifies to receive. It is thus remarkable that EV/Hybrid owners would whine that they are thus treated differently on the use tax they pay. Perhaps the real and just way to tax EV owners is to take their tax credit and to divide it by the years that an average ICE vehicle is owned and then to have the EV/Hybrid owner to pay that as their use tax. I’m sure those who wanted to shift the cost of acquisition for their EV/Hybrid wouldn’t mind being treated fairly.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Hybrid incentives went away a long time ago.

      They were only in place while the market for hybrids was being established. Now that the market can stand on its own two feet, the incentives are gone.

      The federal EV/PHEV incentives have a built-in sunset provision which is applied per-manufacturer. The incentives go away after the manufacturer sells 200k vehicles. Tesla no longer receives the incentive, while it still applies to bit players in the EV/PHEV market like Chrysler and Ford.

      Tesla doesn’t need any encouragement and support to compete and invest in the EV market, and so their incentives are gone.

      If you’re going to complain about something, you need to know how it works.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Direct gas taxes are such a small part of the cost of car ownership, let alone the bite that the state takes out of us in total, they can be treated as literally zero. Even in California at 4.00+ a gallon, just 60 cents of that is “gas tax.” Cents. In 2019. Can’t even buy coffee for that. So how much more or less severely they stick it to EV owners at the pump itself is wholly immaterial.

  • avatar
    volvo

    Actually in my part of California state tax 47 cents/gallon, Federal tax 18 cents/gallon, state tax on gas of 2.25% and then local sales tax of 10% on the entire transaction. California’s carbon cap and trade scheme adds about 24 cents a gallon to price at the pump.

    kind of cool that I get to pay an additional 7.5 cents local sales tax just on the state and federal taxes not to mention.

    These taxes and boutique fuel blends are why we get to pay fuel prices about 30-40% more than the lowest US gas prices.

    Oh and if I buy 15 gallons that is about $10 in taxes. I can get a pretty nice cup (or several cups) of coffee for that.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      Not diminishing how badly California rapes you, turning a sub two dollar RBOB and 18.5 cents of federal tax into 4.25 at the pump is real money. Point is that they’re only declaring 60 cents of that rape as the gas tax per se so holding EV costs up against 60 cents – or 40 cents in the rest of the country – doesn’t demonstrate anything.

  • avatar

    Fairness solution.
    You pay the gas tax when you put gas in your car.
    So pay an electric tax when you recharge your car. As in when your car gets plugged in an isolated system logs time spent charging and relays that info when a tax collection unit pings it.

    Mega solution.
    Eliminate dedicated highway funding all together and make highway construction,repairs part of general budget. Eliminate gas taxes and raise license/tag fees,esp on high value cars.(Low income folks can get refunds on State income taxes.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “…would be unfair to the average family trying to save money on gas by buying an EV.”

    WHAT?
    Delusional. An average family that tries to save $$ on gas would buy Civic LX, not an EV which costs upfront way more. It will take 5 years to brake even; in which time, if family pays interest on said $10K or more, depending on model, it will take even longer to break even.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Agreed. Besides I try to save money buying all manor of things…doesnt mean someone else should subsidize the purchase.

      But yes, typically the buy a new car to save money on anything is a flawed argument. You want one, fine, They are cool so buy it. But is no different than me trying to convince my wife that a Ferrari 308 with an LS swap is in any way, shape, or form a good idea.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “Missouri’s proposed EV fee was set with the help of state senate research staff and experts at the state transportation department, says Senator Gary Romine, who was the main sponsor of the legislation.”

    where did they find these so-called “experts”? In a country that is lagging in basic education and most talented people working in private sector and not government. Country with masses of uneducated people, where could they get experts? For example, Ocasio Cortez is posing as an expert in environmental affairs and works in the top management company. Bartender -expert. I guess, the expertise comes from the amount of drinks taken on any given night. In any case, I don’t believe one word of these experts, because they are not.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    First, thank you TTAC for posting a piece with much more information and detail than the other sites (the ‘nic’s piece has about half this amount of detail).

    Second, I believe all BEV chargers can be easily monitored by the power companies. When Fed, State, and local taxes on EV usage are established, the power companies will simply capture the power usage of the chargers, and bill all appropriate taxes, and then surrender those collected taxes to the appropriate authorities. This is how gasoline/diesel taxes are managed, and smart meter technology enables this model. I believe taxes on fuel should be equivalent, whether petrol or electrons.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    I’d think that the excess over ICE taxation would be kept in an escrow account by each state to help fund disposal of the highly hazardous waste produced by the expended battery packs on these vehicles. A bit of proactive thinking to prevent illegal creation of a superfund site hidden back in the trees of an abandoned lot might be a wise use for such an account.

  • avatar
    probert

    It would be interesting if ICE owners were charge the true expenses for the infrastructure that brings them gas. 9/11 is an appropriate day because the root of 9/11 is oil, and most of oil goes into transportation.

    So – ICE drivers, in order to pay ther “fair share” would be billed for the bulk of US military expenditure since most of that goes to protecting oil producing countries, going to war with oil producing countries, and protecting oil supply lines.

    Not sure how to put a price on US deaths involved in this endeavor – insurance companies could answer that.

    ICE drivers could also be asked to foot the cost for pipelines, and make up the difference to public coffers for tax breaks granted to oil companies by purchased representatives.

    That would be a good start. I mean, why should non ICE people have to support their bad habits?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Truth.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I am in agreement on the need for a significant reduction of the “defense” budget which is more used to project US imperialism throughout the world. However, there are two stark realities: (1) oil and control/production thereof is *the* significant geopolitical issue of the past 110-20 years and (2) the Kissinger Petrodollar is an economic weapon and without it at current debt levels the United States ***will*** experience a Soviet Union style collapse in a matter of months (the SDR currency basket idea is the only one I could find which may mitigate this, at which point we simply become Argentina in 2001. Oh joy). I personally suspect the second issue will come to pass in my lifetime regardless of the first due to the incredible mismanagement of the United States from about 1995 to present.

      I also find it quite foolhardy actual citizens of the United States suffer from poverty, homelessness, addiction, extreme debts and other forms of human despair when even reasonable percentages of the present defense budget could be reallocated to dissuade or improve some of those situations. Furthermore I find it absolutely absurd reasonable people are conned on an awesome scale into the idea that ILLEGAL aliens are somehow a boon to this nation when in fact a healthy percentage are incapable of properly functioning in this society. When the collapse and probable balkanization comes, what do you think your newfound friends will be doing?

      “ICE drivers, in order to pay ther [sic] “fair share””

      Oh and seriously man you sound like a kindergartner with reference to such fallacies, all taxation is stealing. The suggested line of thinking is akin to complaining that life isn’t fair. It isn’t, nor is any tax.

      World War II, the first oil war.

      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-hitler-lost-world-war-ii-no-oil-63817

      This is a good article:

      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-hitler-might-have-won-world-war-ii-seize-all-oil-middle-east-34012

      Excellent summation:

      youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

      Deeper on the topic:

      youtube.com/watch?v=RgxEBGAXNRU&feature=youtu.be

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      The people who spent years blocking domestic oil exploration and extraction should pay for the defense budget.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        And again, it is rare Todd and I agree, but yes, if you opposed domestic production you have blood on your hands too. Everyone was living it up giving zero thought to what those oil dollars were funding. Nobody cared it went to some of the true crazies of the world. It’s like beef…so long as you don’t have to work in the slaughterhouse or live near a feed lot it was all good. Crazies in some desert on the other side of the world? Not my problem, until it was.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          And don’t take that as beef hate. I love steaks. Heck I love food I shoot and prep on occasion. But if my beef dollars were funding that nonsense I’d probably want an alternate source of beef

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      That’s cool @probert. But I bet dollars to donuts I made my first post 9-11 combat deployment before you got an EV so you may want to climb off that EV High horse for a second.

      Incidentally, of those that I knew who made the trip home in flag draped boxes, none of them drove EVs. Do you plan to bill their estate?

      I like EVs. I want one. But honestly people like you are worse than the stereotypical BMW pricks and those dudes with giant Vapes.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Which branch? I think we’re about the same age, I considered enlistment post 9/11 but decided to finish my A.S. instead.

        Incidentally due to some serious life changes lately I had what I believe was a rather amusing conversation with a recruiter (evidently I am at just the cut off age to enlist). I asked can I get a commission because of my Master’s? Evidently it just doesn’t work that way, he said something to the effect of we have X number of staff sergeants here gunning for the same thing and who do you think will get it? Ok, so how does the enlistment thing work? You’re away for X weeks and for me I’d have to pretend to take it seriously even though I’d be surrounded by children for the most part. But wait, you have go to your specialty school I’m like ok what’s the total time in? 6-9 months. Yikes and what is the pay? $250 *per month*! Great Scott! I apologized for wasting his time but I have a mortgage now and my mother is elderly so I really can’t be away for almost a year. Ironically in 2016 when I was laid off I was in the best shape of my life and still had my apt with a ton of cash saved. That would have been the time to do that but it wasn’t on the radar at the time. C’est la vie.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Depending on what your Masters is in you could do a direct commission.

          And it absolutely does work that way…you just have to talk to an Officer recruiter…they are separate, at least for the Army and Navy. And I made more than 250 a month at A School in 1995 so I think you were getting BS’d

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “She claimed that taxing EVs wouldn’t improve state road spending shortfalls (because they aren’t purchased in great numbers) and would be unfair to the average family trying to save money on gas by buying an EV.”

    I agree, the numbers simply are not there and will never be there short of Agenda 2030 type diktats or an extreme energy crisis (in the case of the latter, there would be so many societal problems EV supply will be the lowest concern).

    Here’s what this is, it is an issue they keep pushing for backdoor tracking and income confiscation of your movements, EV or not, oh and no its not as if any branch of government will rescind the current excise taxes on gasoline in its place. (incidentally if you search on “federal gas tax reason”, you will see nothing but media advocating for yet another increase).

    Here’s a sneak peak:

    “The Road Usage Charge (RUC) pilot project underway in 2018 will provide useful insights into the practicality and fairness of a mileage-based fee replacement for the state gas tax. The pilot project will help us understand how a mileage-based road usage charge would work for different drivers in different parts of the state, and whether a charge such as this is a good way to pay for our transportation system needs in the future.”

    ..as if any tax was “fair”, ever…

    https://www.wtp2040andbeyond.com/the-future-of-funding

    The Federal gas tax came into being as part of a larger taxation act in 1932, it had nothing to do with infrastructure. According to Forbes only in 1957 were revenues put toward highways, so for 25 years it was simply pure graft on the part of Fedgov before it was “put to work for you”.

    “Beginning in 1957, gas tax revenues were funneled directly into the federal Highway Trust Fund”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2013/10/24/the-gas-tax-doesnt-work-because-politicians-broke-it/#55ec5ae96bf1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

    In fact, of the current funds allocated from the current Federal tax, 40% are completely misappropriated into “earmarked programs”. Wow, so if we didn’t squander 40-fracking-percent on bullsh!t we could have up to 40% MOAR to invest in “highways” WITHOUT any change? I’m pragmatic, I can accept 10% of anything those bozos do to be lost in corruption, fraud, embezzlement, waste, overruns, and general incompetence. Forty is simply too much to handle.

    “Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007, that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[22] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs.”

    If we break things down to the state level, it appears the People’s Republic of Kalifornia’s latest fuel tax venture will be diverting roughly 30% of the projected take into… non-road projects *gasp* . Politifact goes on to point out although this is true, it was authorized in the “transportation bill” and is not being “diverted”, however according to the Sac Bee since $3.84 Billion was expected to be raised um yeah it kinda is a gas tax increase and unless somehow that 30% was coming out of some other revenue source yeah money is being diverted. But universities such as UC really need that $14 million for… something… as cited by Sac Bee and let’s not forget the $100 million for “sustainable communities planning grants to local governments”. Maybe that’s a code word for plug the local pension shortfalls? Not sure, but as we have seen, a sizeable percentage of existing revenues is stolen for other often political purposes, yet the proles meander along.

    So now its the haves vs have nots, EV’s don’t pay gruff gruff, tax, gruff gruff. Not, wow this is really f**ked up we should work on this together as citizens, its I’m a ‘murican and I roll coal in my pickup and hate those Tesla freaks, and I love the environment with my Tesla and death to the diesel hicks. Divide and conquer as always.

    “The gas tax increase is part of a larger transportation funding legislation signed by Brown in April 2017. In common speech, some politicians simply call this “the gas tax.””

    “Our ruling

    California state Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez recently claimed Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget is “diverting 30 percent of funding from the gas tax to non-road related projects like building parks and job training for felons.”

    There’s some truth to her claim: The governor’s May budget shows about 30 percent of the revenue from this transportation measure goes to categories that won’t directly improve roads for cars and trucks, as dictated by the law Brown signed in April.

    Most of that 30 percent goes to bicycle, transit and rail projects. Melendez, however, cherry-picked two programs — parks and workforce training — that represent less than 3 percent of the overall funding. Melendez’s statement also ignores the fact that roads will see an increased share of the overall funding in future years.

    Additionally, it’s misleading and simply not accurate for Melendez to say this money is being ‘diverted’ when Brown’s budget proposes to spend the money exactly as outlined in the bill he signed and the Legislature passed a month earlier.

    There should be no surprise, at this point, that the measure required funding for transit programs, railways and bicycle and pedestrian paths. The smaller spending on parks, universities and workforce development may raise eyebrows, but was also authorized by SB 1.”

    California state Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez recently claimed Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget is “diverting 30 percent of funding from the gas tax to non-road related projects like building parks and job training for felons.”

    There’s some truth to her claim: The governor’s May budget shows about 30 percent of the revenue from this transportation measure goes to categories that won’t directly improve roads for cars and trucks, as dictated by the law Brown signed in April.

    Most of that 30 percent goes to bicycle, transit and rail projects. Melendez, however, cherry-picked two programs — parks and workforce training — that represent less than 3 percent of the overall funding. Melendez’s statement also ignores the fact that roads will see an increased share of the overall funding in future years.”

    https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/may/19/melissa-melendez/jerry-brown-proposing-divert-30-percent-new-gas-ta/

    “Gas taxes

    Existing: The base excise tax is 18 cents a gallon. A price-based excise tax is currently set at 9.8 cents a gallon, for a total rate of 27.8 cents a gallon.

    Nov. 1, 2017: The base excise tax will increase to 30 cents a gallon.

    July 1, 2019: The price-based excise tax will reset to 17.3 cents a gallon, about half-a-cent more than the rate the Brown administration projects will be in effect by then anyway.

    The 47.3-cent combined excise tax in effect July 1, 2019 will be adjusted for inflation beginning July 1, 2020.

    Average annual revenue: $2.4 billion

    Diesel taxes

    Existing: The base excise tax is 16 cents a gallon. The state also collects two categories of sales taxes on diesel fuel: the regular state and local sales tax, which averages 8.44 percent, and an additional 1.75 percent sales tax.

    Nov. 1, 2017: Base diesel fuel excise tax will increase to 36 cents a gallon. The 36-cent excise tax will be adjusted for inflation beginning July 1, 2020.

    Nov. 1, 2017: The 1.75 percent diesel fuel sales tax will increase to 5.75 percent.

    Estimated annual revenue: $1.08 billion”

    “WHERE WILL THE MONEY GO?
    Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program – $3.24 billion a year on average: Off the top, the program allocates several hundred million dollars to various endeavors:

    ▪ $400 million to maintain and repair state bridges and culverts

    ▪ $200 million for Sacramento and 23 other counties with local transportation taxes

    ▪ $100 million to increase the number of trips by bike and on foot

    ▪ $25 million for the freeway service patrol program

    ▪ $25 million for sustainable communities planning grants to local governments

    ▪ $7 million total for transportation-related research and education at UC ($5 million) and CSU ($2 million)

    ▪ $5 million in workforce development grants to local agencies”

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147437054.html

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t think I will be buying an EV anytime soon especially if my state decides to tax it higher than my ICE vehicle.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Scoutdude: @ DAL GM has been offering a 1 ton Suburban for a number of years, fleet only, mainly for armor upfitting....
  • How_Embarrassing_4You: Ahh yes, the usual weekly peppering of clickbait FORD BAD(!) articles to get the hate flowing...
  • Carlson Fan: “GM could lower floor height by getting rid of the ridiculous built in 3rd row, my petite wife has...
  • Oberkanone: Musk is guilty. Of this there is no doubt. Liable for damages. Nope. When your opponent is worth 21.6...
  • Pete Zaitcev: He meant to say best truck.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States