Louisiana has similar. When in AZ I paid 5 Dollars for 5 years but now in LA I pay the same as my ICE plus an additional EV tax.
Basically yes, but it is sub branches of such that hammer out policy and then submit their wants to the legislature for passing. It doesn't really matter, what does is what gets enacted. If you think it is your elected legislature that "come up with all the ideas" you would be wrong.
Connecticut has no inspections and emissions is a bi-annual OBD2 check only. I registered a 1961 Thunderbird and nothing was done (emissions of course or safety). It didn't have back seat belts - these were optional when purchasing back then.
I acknowledged that the executive agencies come up with the legislation. It's not semantics it's accuracy. Telling you representative you don't approve is sometimes too late. We need to lobby the agencies too. This means speaking at agency leader meetings and writing articles in the trade magazines. This is good work for consumer associations. That is a reason to join such a association. The executive agencies have legislative mandates and gps monitoring would solve many of their problems. I just think that when we use the term "they" it dehumanize these people. They are just trying to make their jobs easier like anyone else. It's not a evil conspiracy, just the nature of any bureaucracy. We need to reach them and give our view that simpler solutions might be better for all. I know the GPS data vendors and integrators are hoping to make a sale to the these agencies and are spending money on trying to sell the GPS solution. Like they always say, follow the money.
Agreed. Our tripartite system is designed to accommodate issues like this. One hopes the legislators get a clue that it is not right to excessively tax EVs, but with 2.5 million EVs on the road in the US, and sizable taxation inequalities in some states with more to come, class action lawsuits are always an option.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. Many taxpayers (like me) are paying a lot of taxes ever year to subsidize fuels we don't use, with the cheaper fuel also resulting in increased road costs. The real cost of gasoline is north of $10/gallon (many many studies, search for "true cost of gasoline"). We pay these other costs through federal taxes for health care, the military's defense of the middle east, support for road infrastructure, etc. In the future, when global warming is tearing things up, the real costs of cumulative fossil fuel use will become even more apparent.
When you start to look at all the complexities, it makes the fuel tax look like a stroke of genius not often found when dealing with taxation.
You both are wrong. legislative bodies pass laws that may include regulations both normally give guidelines to executive agencies who promulgate more detailed rules. Some executive branches members, notably the President can submit legislation, but not most. The courts decide if the executive branch faithfully carried out the legislative directives. President can issue executive orders but that’s a constitutional fine point. The public can have input at any stage, but lobbyists and other organizations are most effective. And of course the ballot box is the ultimate power.
With the caveat that for something as widespread as excessive EV taxation, class action lawsuits are also a remedy.
My point seams to have been lost. No tax is perfect and covers all contingencies. That said the fuel tax was put in place around 100 years ago, without the electronic monitoring capability we have today, and for the most part got the job done. I never said it was perfect, but for the time it was conceived it covered the major issues we are wrestling with here coming up with an alternative.
