New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Speaking of which, that's not half bad looking, if it was real....


https://electrek.co/2019/11/13/tesla-semi-chinese-clone-cybertruck-electric-pickup/

Screen-Shot-2019-11-13-at-10.55.27-AM.jpg
 
From the linked piece:

"If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Tesla should be flattered that Neuron EV, a Chinese-backed EV startup, copied the design of the Tesla Semi for their own electric semi-truck."


To be fair, both Tesla and Neurone seem to have copied their designs from the Cylon attack ships of the Battlestar Galactica reboot.


evraidersc3.jpg
 
Oilpan4 said:
Now NM wants to adopt California style EV mandate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california-minnesota/minnesota-new-mexico-to-adopt-california-vehicle-emissions-rules-idUSKBN1WA2SJ

So they are going to get the tax in place first then try to force people to buy them.
Click to expand...

NM and MN :)
Yes thanks for posting the link, first I've heard of it. I hope this means we'll get a better selection of EVs as now(as it's always been) it's pretty much the Leaf and Tesla :(
I wonder if this means MN will also eliminate or reduce their "EV" tax on Tabs.....(I don't really wonder as I know there is no way in hell MN would eliminate or reduce a tax!) It's almost double what I'd pay in gas taxes for a comparable ICE vehicle driving the number of miles our Leafs get.
While MN might be ahead in some things, EV adoption isn't one of them and most people I've talked to are actually against EVs :roll: were in the land of pickups and SUVs here.....
 
Randy said:
I think your title is overly dramatic. The second generation of EVs has been on the market since 2011 here in CA, and has had an 8 year run of little to no road taxes or other fees.

I don't think it's fair for my neighbors to have to pay my share of road taxes. I'm driving two EVs and I think it is time to pay. Here in CA, they are starting a $100 fee next year for EVs. It's a simple start; if they calculated the fee individually by mileage some people would pay less because of reduced mileage and some would pay more.

Not charging any EVs road maintenance fees is unsustainable as the numbers grow. There is lots of road work to be done, so revenue has to go up and not down. Here in San Diego, we have almost 50,000 EVs on the road. It's time to pay for our share of road maintenance fees...It has nothing to do with EV hate....
Click to expand...

I agree on this subject. While KY has not added any fees to register any EV I expect a $100 will happen and do not have a problem with that. While the battery shortage world wide for EV's is holding back the numbers of EV's on the roads to at some point the most sold will be EV's and no road tax will hurt us all.
 
GaleHawkins said:
Randy said:
I think your title is overly dramatic. The second generation of EVs has been on the market since 2011 here in CA, and has had an 8 year run of little to no road taxes or other fees.

I don't think it's fair for my neighbors to have to pay my share of road taxes. I'm driving two EVs and I think it is time to pay. Here in CA, they are starting a $100 fee next year for EVs. It's a simple start; if they calculated the fee individually by mileage some people would pay less because of reduced mileage and some would pay more.

Not charging any EVs road maintenance fees is unsustainable as the numbers grow. There is lots of road work to be done, so revenue has to go up and not down. Here in San Diego, we have almost 50,000 EVs on the road. It's time to pay for our share of road maintenance fees...It has nothing to do with EV hate....
Click to expand...

I agree on this subject. While KY has not added any fees to register any EV I expect a $100 will happen and do not have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
Then you must like paying a higher road tax than someone driving an equivalent ICE? It's pretty easy to figure out how much an ICE driver driving a given mileage will pay in "road" taxes, which is really BS because the vast majority of "road" taxes are out of the general fund(federal and state) and a pitiful amount is actually paid by the gas tax. Now if you really want to pay for roads then do what Norway or Sweden does, have something like a $4/gallon gas tax! that's reality, even a dollar/gallon "gas" tax is very inadequate.

How I figured even a $100 "EV tab" fee would be more than double what I'd pay in "gas" tax and about what the average ICE driver driving an equivalent ICE car would pay:

First figure out the equivalent MPG a Leaf would be. Now I know the ICE equivalent on the Leaf window sticker is something like 100mpg but I figured 30mpg as what I thought as the Leaf was roughly similar the Versa which gets about 30mpg.
Next you have to figure out how many miles you drive, I drive less than 6k/year but others drive much more, I think the average is 12k?? but that's not really fair for a vehicle like our 70 mile(mines 50-60 miles) Leaf, so lets go with a generous 10k/year.
Lastly you need to know how much your state charges in a "gas" tax, my state(MN) charges slightly less than 29c/gallon.
10k miles @ 30mpg would mean driving a 30mpg ICE someone would be purchasing 333 gallons/year and at 29c/gallon it would mean an average ICE driver would be paying roughly $97/year in a MN "gas" tax. In my case, driving 6k/year(max) I'd be purchasing 200 gallons of gas/year and paying $58/year in a "gas" tax or less than I pay for MN's "EV" tax! a real good incentive for purchasing a vehicle that is cleaner for the environment and I'm not even getting into the "electricity" tax I pay for charging an EV that an ICE driver doesn't pay.
Now the latest is MN is thinking of getting more people to drive EVs, lets think about getting rid of an unfair "EV" tax first :roll:

The only fair way to tax roads is a mileage fee plus weight fee, the more you drive the more you pay and the heavier your vehicle(causes more wear and tear on the roads) the more you pay. Personally I'm not too fond of this way as I figure it would be a record-keeping nightmare and too ripe for cheating but if done correctly could be a more fair way to pay for roads, much fairer than an "EV" tax.
 
jjeff said:
GaleHawkins said:
Randy said:
I think your title is overly dramatic. The second generation of EVs has been on the market since 2011 here in CA, and has had an 8 year run of little to no road taxes or other fees.

I don't think it's fair for my neighbors to have to pay my share of road taxes. I'm driving two EVs and I think it is time to pay. Here in CA, they are starting a $100 fee next year for EVs. It's a simple start; if they calculated the fee individually by mileage some people would pay less because of reduced mileage and some would pay more.

Not charging any EVs road maintenance fees is unsustainable as the numbers grow. There is lots of road work to be done, so revenue has to go up and not down. Here in San Diego, we have almost 50,000 EVs on the road. It's time to pay for our share of road maintenance fees...It has nothing to do with EV hate....
Click to expand...

I agree on this subject. While KY has not added any fees to register any EV I expect a $100 will happen and do not have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
Then you must like paying a higher road tax than someone driving an equivalent ICE? It's pretty easy to figure out how much an ICE driver driving a given mileage will pay in "road" taxes, which is really BS because the vast majority of "road" taxes are out of the general fund(federal and state) and a pitiful amount is actually paid by the gas tax. Now if you really want to pay for roads then do what Norway or Sweden does, have something like a $4/gallon gas tax! that's reality, even a dollar/gallon "gas" tax is very inadequate.

How I figured even a $100 "EV tab" fee would be more than double what I'd pay in "gas" tax and about what the average ICE driver driving an equivalent ICE car would pay:

First figure out the equivalent MPG a Leaf would be. Now I know the ICE equivalent on the Leaf window sticker is something like 100mpg but I figured 30mpg as what I thought as the Leaf was roughly similar the Versa which gets about 30mpg.
Next you have to figure out how many miles you drive, I drive less than 6k/year but others drive much more, I think the average is 12k?? but that's not really fair for a vehicle like our 70 mile(mines 50-60 miles) Leaf, so lets go with a generous 10k/year.
Lastly you need to know how much your state charges in a "gas" tax, my state(MN) charges slightly less than 29c/gallon.
10k miles @ 30mpg would mean driving a 30mpg ICE someone would be purchasing 333 gallons/year and at 29c/gallon it would mean an average ICE driver would be paying roughly $97/year in a MN "gas" tax. In my case, driving 6k/year(max) I'd be purchasing 200 gallons of gas/year and paying $58/year in a "gas" tax or less than I pay for MN's "EV" tax! a real good incentive for purchasing a vehicle that is cleaner for the environment and I'm not even getting into the "electricity" tax I pay for charging an EV that an ICE driver doesn't pay.
Now the latest is MN is thinking of getting more people to drive EVs, lets think about getting rid of an unfair "EV" tax first :roll:

The only fair way to tax roads is a mileage fee plus weight fee, the more you drive the more you pay and the heavier your vehicle(causes more wear and tear on the roads) the more you pay. Personally I'm not too fond of this way as I figure it would be a record-keeping nightmare and too ripe for cheating but if done correctly could be a more fair way to pay for roads, much fairer than an "EV" tax.
Click to expand...

jjeff it is $50 for gas tax and $50 to keep my butt out of gas stations.

At the age of 69 going for 120 I have found being retensive about matters that have a real chance to reduce my longevity just is not worth $50 a year. :)
 
jjeff, While I agree with your weight x mileage fee being the fairest way to do things, did you include the Fed. gas tax. in your $0.29/gal. calc? If not, that would boost it up to $0.474/gal.
 
GRA said:
jjeff, While I agree with your weight x mileage fee being the fairest way to do things, did you include the Fed. gas tax. in your $0.29/gal. calc? If not, that would boost it up to $0.474/gal.
Click to expand...
No, I only took the state tax into account as all "EV" taxes are state-based and not federal, when someone has an EV the feds lose out under either scenario, well unless you count the billions and billions of dollars spent defending countries each year where our only interest is oil..... ;)
 
The government knows how much money we save not buying gas and feels entitled to help themselves to some of it.
 
Oilpan4 said:
The government knows how much money we save not buying gas and feels entitled to help themselves to some of it.
Click to expand...


To pay for roads, yes. The Fed. gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and inflation has been 73% over that period, which (combined with vehicles getting better mpg) means an ever-shrinking contribution from the federal gas tax. When you realize that the Interstate system was paid for by a 90/10 federal/state split (U.S. highways were typically a 50/50 or 60/40 split), it's easy to understand why our highways are in crappy condition.

Of course, fuel taxes have never paid the full cost of our highways, but to fail to even raise the tax to the comparable buying power it had 27 years ago when the interstates and other highways were a lot newer than they are now, never mind raising it to decrease the backlog of long-deferred maintenance, is an act of negligence by our government, aided and abetted by many of the same citizens who complain about the condition of the roads. In a few cases (California being one), we've voted to increase fuel taxes on ourselves (and tie them to inflation going forward), just because the deterioration is so obvious.
 
New Mexico had a billion dollar surplus last year. They don't need to raise the gas tax to fix the roads.
If I thought actually paying more taxes would deliver more or better services I would be all for it.
Higher taxes deliver more bureaucracy, bigger more wasteful government, encourage fraud, waste and abuse such as no bid contracts and other cronyisms. Encourages dead end social engineering programs that reward bad behavior.
No thanks.
If the fuel taxes, vehicle registrations went into a roads only fund and only went to the roads. Then maybe.
 
If you really want to be fair "road taxes" ought to be figured as Miles * Weight^2 * some tax constant. Road damage increases with the square of the weight of the vehicle. Nearly all states have mandatory vehicle inspections which verify the mileage on the vehicle so that is easily enforced. Weight of the vehicle is a known factor. Add an administrative fee if you like. Motorcycles get a pass, Semi-trucks get walloped, and everybody else is somewhere in the middle. Miles driven could be based on an estimate of miles driven in the past years plus a correction based of the record of the last inspection.
 
johnlocke said:
If you really want to be fair "road taxes" ought to be figured as Miles * Weight^2 * some tax constant. Road damage increases with the square of the weight of the vehicle. Nearly all states have mandatory vehicle inspections which verify the mileage on the vehicle so that is easily enforced. Weight of the vehicle is a known factor. Add an administrative fee if you like. Motorcycles get a pass, Semi-trucks get walloped, and everybody else is somewhere in the middle. Miles driven could be based on an estimate of miles driven in the past years plus a correction based of the record of the last inspection.
Click to expand...
I agree with your observation but aren't we already most of the way there. By definition, gas and diesel vehicles already pay fuel tax proportional to the miles they drive. Long haul trucks already pay weight-mile taxes. The two things missing are adjusting vehicle registration fees (including those for EVs) proportional to vehicle weight. That would undoubtedly be a very unpopular idea in the rural West - including New Mexico - due to the common practice of using trucks as passenger cars. But, as you say, fair is fair. And adjusting EV road maintenance fees to mileage. That last one is probably small potatoes as very few EVs are driving particularly long miles, but (again as you say) it could be done.

Now, around here, we are actually coming very close to vehicles carrying an electronic monitor which could determine mileage driven, times of day driven (i.e. rush hours), and mileage driven in congested areas in and around large cities. This is a reaction to the incredible cost of maintaining and upgrading road and bridge infrastructure around large cities. Those who don't often use those facilities rightly enough think that those who do should pay most of the costs.
 
johnlocke said:
If you really want to be fair "road taxes" ought to be figured as Miles * Weight^2 * some tax constant. Road damage increases with the square of the weight of the vehicle. Nearly all states have mandatory vehicle inspections which verify the mileage on the vehicle so that is easily enforced. Weight of the vehicle is a known factor. Add an administrative fee if you like. Motorcycles get a pass, Semi-trucks get walloped, and everybody else is somewhere in the middle. Miles driven could be based on an estimate of miles driven in the past years plus a correction based of the record of the last inspection.
Click to expand...

Our state "use to" have yearly inspections for emissions control and it worked somewhat good other than the fact if you were poor(low reported income) you could get a pass on a vehicle that failed the emissions test(which IMO is totally wrong, the poor would probably be driving cars in need of repair that belched out toxic emissions and should be fixed while more affluent were driving new cars probably with the newest cleanest emission standards) but anyway it was scrapped and we no longer have such tests, not sure how many other states do. Like I said before, relying on honesty for reporting mileage is just ripe for cheating, heck we do that for reporting insurance to get new tabs and I'm guessing 20?? percent of vehicles on the road lack insurance :(
Not sure how much I'd like big brother spying on me, tracking everywhere I go but I agree, it might be the fairest method of tracking who drives where and how much to charge them.
At one time the gas tax was a pretty good easy way to pay for the roads but many states, mine included people squeal like a stuffed pig at any mention of raising the gas tax, so the vast majority comes out of the general fund, one of the least fair ways to pay for road repair :(
 
jjeff said:
johnlocke said:
If you really want to be fair "road taxes" ought to be figured as Miles * Weight^2 * some tax constant. Road damage increases with the square of the weight of the vehicle. Nearly all states have mandatory vehicle inspections which verify the mileage on the vehicle so that is easily enforced. Weight of the vehicle is a known factor. Add an administrative fee if you like. Motorcycles get a pass, Semi-trucks get walloped, and everybody else is somewhere in the middle. Miles driven could be based on an estimate of miles driven in the past years plus a correction based of the record of the last inspection.
Click to expand...

Our state "use to" have yearly inspections for emissions control and it worked somewhat good other than the fact if you were poor(low reported income) you could get a pass on a vehicle that failed the emissions test(which IMO is totally wrong, the poor would probably be driving cars in need of repair that belched out toxic emissions and should be fixed while more affluent were driving new cars probably with the newest cleanest emission standards) but anyway it was scrapped and we no longer have such tests, not sure how many other states do. Like I said before, relying on honesty for reporting mileage is just ripe for cheating, heck we do that for reporting insurance to get new tabs and I'm guessing 20?? percent of vehicles on the road lack insurance :(
Not sure how much I'd like big brother spying on me, tracking everywhere I go but I agree, it might be the fairest method of tracking who drives where and how much to charge them.
At one time the gas tax was a pretty good easy way to pay for the roads but many states, mine included people squeal like a stuffed pig at any mention of raising the gas tax, so the vast majority comes out of the general fund, one of the least fair ways to pay for road repair :(
Click to expand...
Semi-trucks already get regular weight and safety inspections. Switching to weight^2 * mileage for them is easy and fairer all around rather then requiring at least one in-state fill-up. Charge the Fees at the Weigh Stations based on mileage per trip. Driver's logs provide the mileage based on starting point and destination. Pickups don't weigh more than a SUV or any other large car unless they are actually hauling something. Mini-pickups are lighter then some cars. As for cheaters, mileage has to reported whenever a vehicle is sold with a substantial penalty for having under-reported annual mileage. That will stop most of it. The average car changes hands 2-3 times during it's lifetime and the next owner won't want to be stuck with owed fees. Requiring mileage to be reported when a car is scrapped takes care of the last owner.

The real problem is keeping the politicians from raiding the "Road Tax" account for their pet projects instead of using the money for road repair and maintenance.
 
Oilpan4 said:
New Mexico had a billion dollar surplus last year. They don't need to raise the gas tax to fix the roads.
If I thought actually paying more taxes would deliver more or better services I would be all for it.
Higher taxes deliver more bureaucracy, bigger more wasteful government, encourage fraud, waste and abuse such as no bid contracts and other cronyisms. Encourages dead end social engineering programs that reward bad behavior.
No thanks.
If the fuel taxes, vehicle registrations went into a roads only fund and only went to the roads. Then maybe.
Click to expand...

You're arguing for better government (or at least government spending more in line with your priorities), but apparently not willing to invest any time or energy doing anything to bring that about. It's easy to blame any gov't for waste and inefficiency, there's always plenty of both, but at least in a democracy it's up to the public to make sure that the government reflects their priorities, rather than just sitting by and bitching that it doesn't. and of course, far more money has gone from general funds to road funds than the other way.
 
Ummm yeah the government works for me I don't work for them. Government exists to provide services that individuals and small groups of people can't.
You don't invest in government, you pay taxes, taxes are a liability.
Investing, or growing the government is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be any bigger, it's a ready too big.
 
Roads are an essential part of modern infrastructure; just as essential as armies, courts, police, etc... Everyone benefits whether they drive a car a little, a lot, or not at all. A use tax (essentially a toll) is medieval thinking at its finest.
fg8FICo.jpg
 
I liked the toll roads in japan.
Almost like the Japanese version of the blue Ridge parkway.
 
Nubo said:
Roads are an essential part of modern infrastructure; just as essential as armies, courts, police, etc... Everyone benefits whether they drive a car a little, a lot, or not at all. A use tax (essentially a toll) is medieval thinking at its finest.
fg8FICo.jpg
Click to expand...


Certainly all members of society benefit, but not equally, and whether you consider a use tax medieval or not, I have no trouble at all with the idea that those who impose the highest costs on a common infrastructure should pay more than those who impose a lesser amount. As noted previously, use taxes alone have never fully paid for public roads in the U.S., and much of the time they haven't even made up a majority - the rest comes out of general funds.
 

Similar threads

G
ABG: Michael Bloomberg would require all new cars to be EVs by 2035 Goals for vehicles and buildings are less ambitious
Replies
9
Views
3K
Oilpan4
O
G
GCC: New Jersey governor announces state interagency electric vehicle partnership; 330K ZEVs by 2025
Replies
0
Views
1K
GRA
G
R
Wisconsin converting EV tax into Economy car tax
Replies
12
Views
8K
smkettner
S
L
2018 - 2019 40KWH LEAF: Should You Buy or Lease?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
40K
SageBrush
S
P
2017 Carbon Raffle - Tesla @ $120K, Model 3, Model 3, taxes, cash
Replies
6
Views
3K
Pollux666
P

Latest posts

Back
Top