[Oeva-list] tax policies.

Steve's Account stevel at fern.com
Sun Jul 1 07:15:06 PDT 2012

From: Greg Long writes:
> Petroleum-fuel taxes still make the most sense and should be raised
> along with a corresponding lowering of other taxes and fees, and a
> complete elimination of vehicle registration fees for efficient
> vehicles.

Why do you believe that they should be raised? To achieve some "social
engineering" purpose? If so, what is that purpose and who decided that
it was the thing that needed to be done?

What about high effiency petroleum fueled vehicles?
> Petroleum fuel taxes increase incentives to use less petroleum and
> reward those who do. They require no technology modification or cost
> and and are very difficult to circumvent. They do not violate privacy
> like invasive GPS technologies do.

What are you trying to accomplish?

If you are trying to address global warming issues then you should tax
other things like beef, pork and milk because animal agriculture is a
major sorce of global warming gasses.

You should "really" tax airline tickets. On a passenger mile basis they are
very fuel intensive.

Since electric cars are actually fueled by carbon based fuels to start with
why shouldn't they be taxed as well?

In 2010 electricity production accounted for 2258 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide (eq) while "transportation" only accounted for 1745 mmt.

Deciding tax policy to accomplish some "social engineering goal" is a really
poor idea, in my opinion.

If you are talking "taxing vehicles for road repairs".. then all vechicles
should be taxed according to their impact on the system.
> As petroleum fuel utilization changes, the tax can be periodically
> adjusted by an elected committee or something along those lines.  The
> period would have to be agreed upon, perhaps every 2 or 5 years.
> Somewhat related, vehicle insurance regulations should be changed so
> that an additional efficient vehicle can be added to policy at no
> extra cost for the same coverage, provided the efficient one is not
> operated at the same time as the original.
> Naturally, insurance details would have to be worked out, one solution
> could be a requirement for insurance companies to cover drivers, and
> not the vehicles.
> Thoughts?

Instead of insuring the vehicle... insure the driver for all risks, except
damage to the vehicle. Then it doesn't matter how many vehicles you own.

For damage to the vehicle, whether you are driving it or it is sitting in
the driveway, the risks still exist.. so insure the vehicle for that purpose
whether it's being driven or not!

Fuel effiency has no bearing on insurance!

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:29 PM,  <Theoldcars at aol.com> wrote:
>> Pat
>> While I am in agreement with you gas taxes should be raised. However?the
>> majority of the voting public here does not see it that way. A gas tax?in
>> Oregon?has been voted down?several times?in past attempts. Between gas
>> prices?and?this economy I doubt?a tax increase?would have any chance.
>> ODT has been?for a very?long time been looking at ways to?increase revenue.
>> So this really has less to do with?the revenue generated by EVs. What it
>> would do is help ODT get everyone use to a different way to collect road
>> taxes.?The use of an alternative fuel?not paying for roads is a good
>> argument that?works on the?idea of fairness. After all even if the numbers
>> don't work?its the?thought that counts. Most people are fair and if?focus is
>> roads then keeping things fair gives a reason for the change.
>> While the funding of roads?or?the repair?and even more so the?replacement?of
>> bad bridges is valid concern. As a nation were currently on the fast road to
>> being bankrupt. We should encourage EVs use as a way to reduce shipping
>> dollars out of the country. The mass majority of drivers?continue to
>> buy?gas?and it is?a fuel our nation cannot afford. The impact on our economy
>> at some point will be even greater then the economic crisis of 2008. You
>> simply just can't keep printing money and not expect a catastrophic
>> economic?failure. Its not a matter of if it will happen only a question of
>> when.? What good are nice roads when fewer and fewer?people?will be able to
>> afford driving on them? Right now miles driven are down due to the cost of
>> fuel and the economy.?What is pending in?our future is far worse then the
>> condition of roads.
>> We should be doing everything possible to encourage the use of EVs at the
>> fastest rate possible. Consider?one of the?main reasons?ICE drivers say?EVs
>> are not practical "EVs cost too much."?That you can buy a ICE for 12,000 but
>> an EV costs two or three times that amount. What is being overlooked here is
>> that new?ICE is now costing all of us for the next ten or twenty years?is
>> that fair??Buying a 12,000 dollar ICE?encourages?continuing dependence of
>> imported energy.?Every ICE driver should be endorsing any method that?leads
>> to?less drivers competing for the same fuel. Less demand
>> will?help?steady?prices and give us more time to move away from ICE
>> vehicles.
>> The future of our country?will depend on how many of us are willing to
>> buy?EVs.?An EV is not?just an?investment paying off?for the?EV owner with an
>> efficient motor and inexpensive fuel costs. It is a vehicle that helps every
>> person in this nation regardless if you own or don't own a vehicle. The
>> drivers of ICE vehicles are driving the value of our dollar?down. Since this
>> is like 99.999 percent of the driving?population majority rules. It is
>> not?oil or gold?going up it is the value of the dollar going down.
>> It is not unusual to tax what we would like to discourage for the benefit of
>> society. Then to apply these?tax funds to help?reduce the number of the
>> population from continuing?undesirable actions that affect all.?It is also
>> not unusual to?pay?bounty when a problem becomes out?of control
>> or?overwhelming.?Sure appears to me were at that point now with ICE
>> vehicles.
>> There are many on this list who say it is only fair we all pay our share.
>> Usually if your talking about a fair situation I would agree. The majority
>> of people I?believe?want to do the right thing and on of them is?not be
>> freeloading off others. In effect now what we have?a general population?that
>> feels it is entitled?to use oil for transportation. That it?has always been
>> this way and should continue to be this way?regardless of the outcome.?Well
>> its not fair that people continue to buy an imported energy that devalues
>> our dollar.?Short of putting a warning on the pump and receipt. Most people
>> just don't seem to realize they are funding the problem.
>> Most?people?only think day to day about what they need to do and where they
>> need to go.?The actual cost to them is not understood nor do they
>> realize?the continued dependence on oil?is like a chronic disease. The
>> damage?is occurring?over a long period of time. Since most everyone has the
>> same illness?of?driving an?ICE. The disease is?not?viewed as a threat but as
>> a?very necessary requirement to live life as you know it. Other wise they
>> would not be able to use?ICE vehicle. Which to most?owners?is their
>> first?or?second largest investment.
>> There are?numerous excellent?reasons to use electric energy?to power
>> vehicles. Many can be down played, dismissed or just plain disagreed on.
>> Right or wrong people will take a point of view based on false information
>> or?mistaken?beliefs. There are many examples of this in the past and I will
>> not bore you with details on hindsight.?I believe?the best valid argument?to
>> subsidize EVs?is the pending?financial?crisis?looming in our
>> future.?Continuing?to buy?oil from other countries is obviously is not
>> sustainable. Just as bad is the security risk to us and the rest of the
>> world.
>> The one fact?that no one can disagree with is, you can not continue to spend
>> more then you make. Everyone knows what the outcome will be if a person
>> or?business does so. When it comes to the government many just dismiss it as
>> if?the same rules?don't apply.?If you spend more then you take in your going
>> to be?broke. If?our country?prints up more money then it takes in?then the
>> value of the dollar will fall just as it has.?The
>> bad part about this is you can be a very frugal person and yet your going to
>> be badly impacted along with everyone else.
>> IMHO this is where were headed with oil. Is it fair that our nation
>> continues down this path without encouraging?the general?population by
>> steering it in a different direction? By government I mean every level of
>> government including state, county and city to do what is best for everyone.
>> What is obviously best for all of us?is if everyone?really understood. The
>> more we delay the worse its going to be. One of our greatest problems we
>> face today is?caused by?ICE vehicles. Every public agency should be directed
>> to find ways to encourage EV use and this should include ODT.
>> Tax free EVs are more then fair?and at this time?would be the correct path
>> to take.?The way our economy is today and based on where were?headed. It is
>> in everyone's best interest to remove or convert as many ICE?vehicles off
>> the road as quickly as possible.
>> I believe EVs should get a free ride until their numbers reach the point
>> where we no longer need to import oil. Until this happens were printing up
>> money which is a nation not acting responsible for its actions. Now if we
>> can get to this?level with solar, wind, geothermal then fine. Until that
>> happens?I feel?there is no excuse to do anything that would not encourage
>> more EVs or shift more costs away from ICE drivers.
>> At this time I say forget about having EVs pay for the roads. EV numbers are
>> insignificant and will be for a very considerable amount of time.?What would
>> be better is to?pay EV drivers?by the mile.?EVs should receive a tax break
>> for every mile driven both state and federal. Now that would not only be
>> fair it would be smart. Even if you never want to own an EV it rewards
>> others for keeping the cost of your fuel down and saving our nations
>> economy. So your children and?the children?they have don't have to figure
>> out how to get out of the mess we passed on to them.
>> After all?many of us?know how inconvenient owning an EV is. They only have a
>> limited amount of range and?it can take?hours to recharge.?For the privilege
>> of ICE drivers avoiding all the hassles of owning an EV. It seems reasonable
>> the?ICE driver?incur?a tax for the luxury of driving an ICE at everyone's
>> expense. An easy?option?for?many ICE drivers would be?to replace
>> their?second or third vehicle they own to be an EV.
>> Sorry about the long winded post. I will try and contain myself.
>> Don Blazer
>> In a message dated 6/12/2012 12:00:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:59:06 -0700
>> From: patrick0101 at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] tax issues.
>> To: OEVA <oeva-list at oeva.org>
>> Message-ID:
>> ? ? <CAJTfAAW=gvH3HG0LtHuC=EDxDYYZYUH3N51CR2zryDS684+mXg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> I like the idea of an odometer based tax (rather than GPS). I also like the
>> idea of a taxes on tires (including (or especially) studded). Tire wear
>> would have a high correlation to road wear. I also think the Oregon gas tax
>> should be raised. Oregon's gas tax is lower than Washington's and
>> California's.
>> Regards,
>> Pat
>> Sunlight will never cost $4/gallon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oeva-list mailing list
>> Oeva-list at oeva.org
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
> End of Oeva-list Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1
> *****************************************

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list