CA - AB1591 - $165 flat fee for zero-emission vehicles

[grandizer52]

I think it is more important to help the polluters to stop polluting by increasing the taxes on polluting

Now if like DanCar you want to justify the 39 to 42 cents a gallon gas tax as "pollution tax," well, that's different. Since most people don't have a choice of non-polluting vehicles, as affordable non-polluting vehicles don't exist, then you are just taxing people for being poor.[/quote]


JPADC - If your run for president...you have my vote...so who pay's vehicle exsize tax in their area?...where does that money go? the gas tax is suppose to go into a trust fund (again government thinking) that is set aside for roads/bridges, some local gov's got the exsize tax to get you for local infrastructure...but again, once it's in the hands of elected leaders...they skim a bit for other programs...then you have bridges collapsing...you should drive here in hawaii...the roads are worse than anywhere...

 

[tkdbrusco]

Any fee on EVs is completely ridiculous until the state stops funding or runs out of funds for the state rebate on purchases of electric vehicles. How do you simultaneously give someone a rebate funding by taxes and then add an annual tax to the same vehicle?! Are our politicians really this big of idiots? Is government really this stupid? Yes I think so.

 

[jpadc]

Any fee on EVs is completely ridiculous until the state stops funding or runs out of funds for the state rebate on purchases of electric vehicles. How do you simultaneously give someone a rebate funding by taxes and then add an annual tax to the same vehicle?! Are our politicians really this big of idiots? Is government really this stupid? Yes I think so.

I agree, remove the state and federal incentives for buying electric cars, remover their special status for HOV lanes and require EV owners to pay road use taxes like other vehicles.

You pollute.. you pay. What is so difficult to understand?

But when I hear mkjayakumar and others complain about fees for road use on EV, they are all of this form... "but but I'm doing good for the world and what I'm doing helps get us off dino fuels." Well, actually those incentives simply let you shift the cost of getting off dino fuel onto others who don't adopt so its really the non-adopters that are "doing the good" as they are the ones bearing the costs of the transition.

 

[grandizer52]

Any fee on EVs is completely ridiculous until the state stops funding or runs out of funds for the state rebate on purchases of electric vehicles. How do you simultaneously give someone a rebate funding by taxes and then add an annual tax to the same vehicle?! Are our politicians really this big of idiots? Is government really this stupid? Yes I think so.

I agree...YES

 

[Stoaty]

[But when I hear mkjayakumar and others complain about fees for road use on EV, they are all of this form... "but but I'm doing good for the world and what I'm doing helps get us off dino fuels." Well, actually those incentives simply let you shift the cost of getting off dino fuel onto others who don't adopt so its really the non-adopters that are "doing the good" as they are the ones bearing the costs of the transition.

Yes, but that will hopefully motivate the non-adopters to buy a BEV, so by shifting the cost we are also "doing good".

 

[fooljoe]

Money is fungible, but the entire justification for the 39 to 42 cents per gallon tax on gasoline (over the basic sales tax paid on all other products) was specifically to pay for roads (if that money is not getting there, that's on your lawmakers). Such taxes don't exist on electrons. So if not dedicated to roads, then that tax should not exist. The gas tax was always an easy substitute for a road use tax and until alternative fuel vehicles (including hybrids) came alone, a very effective one.

None of this is relevant. The supposed justification was just an instrument to dupe the public into letting themselves be taxed - there are no legal ramifications to it. Sure, the tax receipts go into some "pot" that pays for roadwork, but money from the general fund (therefore any and every tax) goes into it as well. Again, money is fungible.

You do use the roads so you should pay for them. So as alternative fueled vehicles become more common the gas tax method of collecting road use taxes no longer works well and needs to be replaced with a direct road use tax and the gas tax eliminated. Until then, electric vehicles (including hybrids) need to pay for their use of the roads.

Everyone benefits from the roads and so everyone should pay for them (and they do - see above). They are public infrastructure. I don't know why people have the idea that we should treat our public roads like they were toll roads - should people with kids pay extra for schools, or should we somehow treat the military as a "pay per use" system?

 

[abasile]

I think it is more important to help the polluters to stop polluting by increasing the taxes on polluting

Now if like DanCar you want to justify the 39 to 42 cents a gallon gas tax as "pollution tax," well, that's different. Since most people don't have a choice of non-polluting vehicles, as affordable non-polluting vehicles don't exist, then you are just taxing people for being poor.

What about all of the cheap, used LEAFs on the market? Many lower-income people have two or more cars and could buy a used LEAF next time they have to replace one.

 

[jpadc]

What about all of the cheap, used LEAFs on the market? Many lower-income people have two or more cars and could buy a used LEAF next time they have to replace one.

Seriously? The cheapest Leaf within 100 miles of 92382 (your zipcode) is listed at $7500. Tell me ANYONE who is making a rate of even an aspirational $15 an hour who could possibly hope to afford a car anywhere near that price. Again the AVERAGE car on the road in the US is more than 11 years old because most people can't afford to do otherwise. In your area there are plenty of cars that are under $2000 that would be a financial stretch but stilll way more doable than a used LEAF. Do you think there will be a LEAF (or any other electric vehicle) on the road that when its 11+ years old will be able to meet the needs of someone who has to drive 30 minutes or more to work because they can't afford to live in your neighborhood where they might work as say a server in a fast food restaurant?

So just push for that raise in the gas tax as a "pollution fee" and and fight road use fees on EVs and feel like your doing good for the world, just don't look too closely at who is really paying the cost for that.

 

[abasile]

What about all of the cheap, used LEAFs on the market? Many lower-income people have two or more cars and could buy a used LEAF next time they have to replace one.

Seriously? The cheapest Leaf within 100 miles of 92382 (your zipcode) is listed at $7500. Tell me ANYONE who is making a rate of even an aspirational $15 an hour who could possibly hope to afford a car anywhere near that price. Again the AVERAGE car on the road in the US is more than 11 years old because most people can't afford to do otherwise. In your area there are plenty of cars that are under $2000 that would be a financial stretch but stilll way more doable than a used LEAF. Do you think there will be a LEAF (or any other electric vehicle) on the road that when its 11+ years old will be able to meet the needs of someone who has to drive 30 minutes or more to work because they can't afford to live in your neighborhood where they might work as say a server in a fast food restaurant?

So just push for that raise in the gas tax as a "pollution fee" and and fight road use fees on EVs and feel like your doing good for the world, just don't look too closely at who is really paying the cost for that.

While the particular characteristics of where I live are mostly off topic, I'll have to say that it makes no sense for someone who makes $15/hour to live up here in the San Bernardino Mountains unless their job is local (typically a resort job, one of a limited number of retail jobs, or maybe handyman work) or they don't have to commute. Housing can be very cheap here, but daily commuting down/up the mountain (4k - 6k feet elevation change) will eat a beater car alive. I wouldn't recommend it in a LEAF, either, due to the rapid degradation of the battery pack from the resulting heat. Another short-range EV with thermal management should fare better.

Anyway, from a financial perspective, someone making $15/hour or less really should try to avoid car ownership if at all possible, and ride the bus, cycle, walk, and maybe use car sharing. If that's not possible, then I agree that a cheap, comparatively fuel-efficient gas car is probably the best option.

That said, many low to medium income people, like North Americans in general, eschew smaller cars and spend way too much money on gas guzzlers. I've seen people with low-paying jobs at mountain camps (likely under $15/hour) buy brand new trucks, even with high gas prices.

What I'd like to see is a revenue-neutral carbon tax that's mostly refunded back to everyone evenly, sort of like the annual "dividend" that Alaskans receive as a share of the state's oil income. Then I'd be fine with eliminating EV subsidies (as well as subsidies on fossil fuels, of course).

 

[smkettner]

Any fee on EVs is completely ridiculous until the state stops funding or runs out of funds for the state rebate on purchases of electric vehicles. How do you simultaneously give someone a rebate funding by taxes and then add an annual tax to the same vehicle?! Are our politicians really this big of idiots? Is government really this stupid? Yes I think so.

If the $2,500 comes from the general fund and the $165 actually goes toward roads it is completely reasonable.
The $2,500 can end any time. The $165 will only escalate. For the consumer they are ahead for the life of the vehicle.

 

[tkdbrusco]

Any fee on EVs is completely ridiculous until the state stops funding or runs out of funds for the state rebate on purchases of electric vehicles. How do you simultaneously give someone a rebate funding by taxes and then add an annual tax to the same vehicle?! Are our politicians really this big of idiots? Is government really this stupid? Yes I think so.

If the $2,500 comes from the general fund and the $165 actually goes toward roads it is completely reasonable.
The $2,500 can end any time. The $165 will only escalate. For the consumer they are ahead for the life of the vehicle.

Are you really about to tell me that because one of them comes from one fund and the other comes from someplace else that it makes any difference? Who cares where the line item is in the budget, they both come from one place.... my taxes!

 

[fooljoe]

Who cares where the line item is in the budget, they both come from one place.... my taxes!

Exactly! The idea of dedicating tax revenues to specific expenditures exists solely to sway the public into accepting a tax, and in practice usually has no bearing on the funding levels of the target expenditures. What does matter about tax policy is the effect it has on markets, and with the EV market as weak as it's ever been with today's ridiculously low gas prices, the last thing we need is a new tax that penalizes EV ownership.

 

[tkdbrusco]

Who cares where the line item is in the budget, they both come from one place.... my taxes!

Exactly! The idea of dedicating tax revenues to specific expenditures exists solely to sway the public into accepting a tax, and in practice usually has no bearing on the funding levels of the target expenditures. What does matter about tax policy is the effect it has on markets, and with the EV market as weak as it's ever been with today's ridiculously low gas prices, the last thing we need is a new tax that penalizes EV ownership.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a Republican, probably one of a handful on this site, and one of the main reasons I bought my Leaf was that with all of the rebates and credits, it was an extremely cheap car. I probably would have broke even on the deal if gas prices hadn't hit a downward spiral, but even with that, I'll still be better off than any ICE alternative. That being said, I am now 100% convinced that EVs are superior products and even agree that government subsidies were a good move in pushing the technology forward. I think that we are almost at a point where some of the rebates will not be necessary to drive sales, especially with 200+ mi EVs in the pipeline. What I actually think is going to be worst will be when Chevy, Nissan, and Tesla run out of the $7500 federal credits because they've hit the 200K production numbers, meanwhile other manufactures will be able to swoop in and offer these credits even though they were last to the party. I don't think that the trailblazers should be able to be shoved aside when they forged the path in the first place. I also think that there should be some rebate/credit for replacement batteries on early EVs, otherwise you'll find a lot of these cars useless for anything other than grocery store runs, and there's no environmental benefit to a Leaf in a junk yard at 100K miles, when an ICE car goes to 200K plus before being put out of service.

 

[Nubo]

... should we somehow treat the military as a "pay per use" system?

Now, that could solve a multitude of problems.

 

[fooljoe]

What I actually think is going to be worst will be when Chevy, Nissan, and Tesla run out of the $7500 federal credits because they've hit the 200K production numbers, meanwhile other manufactures will be able to swoop in and offer these credits even though they were last to the party. I don't think that the trailblazers should be able to be shoved aside when they forged the path in the first place.

Definitely. The idiocy that is the structure of the EV tax credit deserves its own thread. Were there any semblance of reason remaining in congress I might hold out hope that that mess could get fixed before the "good guys" like Nissan and Tesla start getting penalized, but sadly we're probably stuck with the law as it is.

I also think that there should be some rebate/credit for replacement batteries on early EVs, otherwise you'll find a lot of these cars useless for anything other than grocery store runs, and there's no environmental benefit to a Leaf in a junk yard at 100K miles, when an ICE car goes to 200K plus before being put out of service.

Not to mention that now it might cost you an extra $165/year for that old EV that's only good for grocery store runs! AB1591 should be named the "Junk Your EVs Act".

 

[jpadc]

The idea of dedicating tax revenues to specific expenditures exists solely to sway the public into accepting a tax, and in practice usually has no bearing on the funding levels of the target expenditures.

True enough, but if the expenditures fall woefully short of the revenue collected for something, the people are likely to (and should) take that out on their elected officials. As for roads in CA, I don't drive them but everyone here who does says there in bad shape (as there are everywhere in the country frankly) and because tax collection revenues to fix them don't exist, they either need more money or to decide to just let them deteriorate more and more. If you don't like the roads crumbling, the question then because where to get the funds. If the State get is by raising sales taxes or income taxes or any other tax that everybody pays, that's good right?

What does matter about tax policy is the effect it has on markets, and with the EV market as weak as it's ever been with today's ridiculously low gas prices, the last thing we need is a new tax that penalizes EV ownership.

So as long as the tax increase is not directed at EV ownership, but a more general tax increase for everyone, you're all good with it, right?

 

[abasile]

I also think that there should be some rebate/credit for replacement batteries on early EVs, otherwise you'll find a lot of these cars useless for anything other than grocery store runs, and there's no environmental benefit to a Leaf in a junk yard at 100K miles, when an ICE car goes to 200K plus before being put out of service.

Not to mention that now it might cost you an extra $165/year for that old EV that's only good for grocery store runs! AB1591 should be named the "Junk Your EVs Act".

As to rebates on replacement batteries, I wouldn't object, but on the other hand, I'm mostly fine with simply letting the market de-value EVs with lousy batteries. If EV manufacturer A makes battery packs that tend to degrade quickly while manufacturer B makes more robust, longer lasting packs with more range, then market forces will reward B while penalizing A. Over time, this will lead to the production of more EVs with robust batteries. (Notice that sales of the Tesla Model S have been competitive with the LEAF's numbers, in spite of Tesla's much higher price.)

Further, I believe that older, drivable, limited range EVs will eventually find their way to drivers with suitable use cases if they are priced low enough, i.e., at true market prices. For someone on a low budget who primarily just needs to get around a medium sized city, a really cheap, old LEAF with 40-50 miles of range could be a great match.

I do agree, though, that $165/year is a bit much for an older LEAF that can't go very far on a charge. In any case, I'm against any new fees on EVs until fossil fuels are priced according to their true costs to humanity.

 

[fooljoe]

True enough, but if the expenditures fall woefully short of the revenue collected for something, the people are likely to (and should) take that out on their elected officials.

It's the other way around - the "issue" is the revenue collected from gas taxes is woefully short of the expenditures, so the difference is made up with the general fund. Although I wouldn't really say that it's an issue at all, as any planner with half a brain would know that the revenue from any excise tax (like the gas tax) would naturally fall over time and can't be relied upon to support an expenditure which will only rise over time.

You're absolutely correct that the people should take out their frustration on their elected officials - those officials should responsibly allocate money from the general fund for high priority needs like infrastructure (that's their job after all.) However, the invention of these "dedicated tax revenues" results in quite the opposite: When money for infrastructure falls short the people direct their frustration at "freeloading EV drivers" rather than politicians.

As for roads in CA, I don't drive them but everyone here who does says there in bad shape (as there are everywhere in the country frankly) and because tax collection revenues to fix them don't exist, they either need more money or to decide to just let them deteriorate more and more. If you don't like the roads crumbling, the question then because where to get the funds. If the State get is by raising sales taxes or income taxes or any other tax that everybody pays, that's good right?

The California budget is actually in great shape right now - we don't have any need for new taxation. However, if there were a shortfall, then you're correct that any and all types of revenue generating schemes should be considered.There's no reason at all to link infrastructure spending to infrastructure users. In my opinion, if new taxation is needed it would make more sense to first go after the top earners, with for example income taxes or property taxes. Things like vehicle registration taxes and sales taxes are regressive - they disproportionately affect the poor, and they stymie consumer spending by making purchases more expensive. The gas tax is also regressive, but I'd say it should be maintained or increased in order to discourage consumption, since producing and burning gas has so many known deleterious effects. But the revenues from it should just go into the general fund like any other tax and not be tied to any specific expenditures.

So as long as the tax increase is not directed at EV ownership, but a more general tax increase for everyone, you're all good with it, right?

Aside from the above rant on regressive taxes, sure. But again, it's really hard to justify any sort of new tax in California in the midst of a huge budget surplus. :roll:

 

[jpadc]

But again, it's really hard to justify any sort of new tax in California in the midst of a huge budget surplus. :roll:

Well, not counting all those unfunded liabilities but CA is certainly not alone (nor even on top) in the "let's ignore how deeply in debt we are" contest.

 

[TimLee]

There's no reason at all to link infrastructure spending to infrastructure users. In my opinion, if new taxation is needed it would make more sense to first go after the top earners, with for example income taxes or property taxes. Things like vehicle registration taxes and sales taxes are regressive - they disproportionately affect the poor, and they stymie consumer spending by making purchases more expensive. The gas tax is also regressive, but I'd say it should be maintained or increased in order to discourage consumption, since producing and burning gas has so many known deleterious effects. But the revenues from it should just go into the general fund like any other tax and not be tied to any specific expenditures.

Why not?
The tax on fossil fuels on a per gallon basis was actually one of the more intelligently designed tax mechanisms.
It did have shortcomings in that it was regressive on the lower income persons driving older less efficient vehicles.
But it appropriately taxed Hummer drivers more.
It never taxed large trucks appropriately based on their damage to the infrastructure.
And as vehicles became more efficient, revenue fell as it was not indexed to the ongoing need for infrastructure msintensnce funding.
So it had some shortcomings.

But to say everything should all come out of general revenue is a stupid idea.

Yes there are things like mass transit that are the smart intelligent thing to do that will never be able to pay their way based on use taxes, but to abandon pay based on use taxes for barges and vehicles completely is a stupid idea.