johnlocke
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Dec 2015
Leaf Number: 300582

Re: New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:10 am

powersurge wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:08 am
GRA wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:17 pm
Nubo wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:44 am


But a gasoline tax does little to provide the equitable assessment you seek, with fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles vary by a factor of 6:1. Factor in passengers and you've got potential disparities of 50:1 or greater. And now for EVs we have miles factored out altogether. I can see a surcharge for heavy trucks that actually do significant damage but for a typical car, the cost to maintain the road is going to be practically the same whether you drive it or not. Any signal from gasoline tax is lost in the noise. It's an antiquated model from a time when cars were toys for the rich.

Please note that I'm not suggesting a gas tax by itself, I want a weight x mileage annual registration fee plus a fuel (carbon) tax. The weight x mileage fee handles the road wear and tear, the fuel tax takes care of differences in (fossil-fuel) efficiency as well as air pollution effects. It's not perfect, as weights can vary widely especially with commercial vehicles, but it's workable and a lot more equitable than a flat annual fee for EVs. Making the reg. fee weight-based encourages people to buy a smaller, lighter and AOTBE more efficient car, especially if we base the reg. fee on the GVWR instead of empty or curb weight (which should cut down on people choosing to commute solo in what cwerdna refers to as "Battering Ram of Death"-class SUVs), and multiplying that by mileage encourages people to drive less. I went over to Pay-as-you-drive mileage-based insurance for just that reason, because it causes me to think on every trip about what it will cost me to drive over and above fuel costs, or use my bike or public transit for that trip. Granted, many people don't want to make that calc or would consider it not worth their time, but shouldn't one of the points of these taxes be to force people to confront the true costs of externalities that they'd rather ignore, and preferably have other people pay for (see my desire for a Central Command fuel tax for the same reason)?
These propositions are ridiculous... As a citizen, anyone who is "asking for" - Registration x weight x miles x type of car x gas x ???? taxes is looking to let the government tax people into oblivion. This is asking for the government to intervene and find clever ways to know your every move, to the point of knowing how many breaths you take.. Do you want them to do that too?

Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..
Taxation is merely a legalized form of extortion. Always has been. Having said that, the use of taxes to fund social programs ( that includes roads, schools, police, and the military) is preferable to trying to get private companies to do the same things and is much better than building estates for the aristocrats and funding their lavish lifestyles(trickle down economy, anyone). There are things that are done better by government entities and some things that can only be done by them (national defense or Fire Departments for instance).

Taxation of corporations vs private citizens is simply a false argument. If you tax a business, the business merely passes the cost on to the consumer. It becomes a cost of business and a hidden use tax to the consumer. VAT is simply an upfront way of doing that but it is still the consumer who pays for it in the end. Politicians always look for some way to sugarcoat new taxes. Earmarks or special funds are favorites along with taxes that only target "others" (hotel taxes and special use taxes come to mind). Governments never tax you into oblivion, just enough to make you wince but not scream. ;)
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

powersurge
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:24 am
Delivery Date: 06 Dec 2014
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:31 am

WetEV wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:05 am
powersurge wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:08 am
Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..
Nothing is free, somebody pays for it. One way or another.

Phone tax to provide service to rural areas used to be done by having a single company handle nearly all phones. Profit for a single phone company is maximized when as many people as possible have phones. Great... Sort of... Well, not really. And the Bell system was fairly well behaved for a monopoly. Some of extra profits (meaning higher phone bills paid by consumers) went into research at Bell Labs, which eventually did pay a return in improved technology. Yet the customers paid for this, and more. The phone company didn't have to care, and didn't. Unlike a government, you can't vote the phone company out, unless the government breaks up the phone company, which it eventually did. With multiple phone companies, profit is maximized if someone else provides service to high cost rural areas. So now we pay a tax to subsidize phone service to rural voters. The alternative would would be very high cost or no service for rural areas. If you minimize government, you give power to corporations that you can't vote out of office. Corporations are very willing to control you in ways that government wouldn't be allowed to as any government that tried such would be voted out.

So which would you really prefer? A fairly small tax, or a much larger total phone bill? A phone company that doesn't have to care or a government that had better care or will lose the next election?
I am against ever-creeping infringement of government control of our lives. They think that they have a right to legislate into law, without our permission, controls and tell us what we cannot do (for our own good)? In NY, the had a law that you could only buy a pint sized soda and only be able to have a certain size of soda in restaurants because more than that was BAD for us... If they can push such BS on us, then sky is the limit...

WetEV
Posts: 3628
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:15 am

powersurge wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:31 am
I am against ever-creeping infringement of government control of our lives. They think that they have a right to legislate into law, without our permission, controls and tell us what we cannot do (for our own good)? In NY, the had a law that you could only buy a pint sized soda and only be able to have a certain size of soda in restaurants because more than that was BAD for us... If they can push such BS on us, then sky is the limit...
The greatest profit for the corporation, regardless of harm to you?

Look at films from the 1950's and 1960's. Notice how people's shapes were different back then. There is a reason for that...
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Oilpan4
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:31 am

No one wants to go back to the 1950s or 1960s.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

Return to “Website/Forum Discussions”