[Oeva-list] tax issues and fairness.

schristie at mind.net schristie at mind.net
Tue Jun 12 12:10:38 PDT 2012


So, Oregon has a 30 cent per gallon tax. At a typical 25 miles per
gallon driven at an average 12,000 miles per year it is 480 gallons of
gasoline so at 30 cents it would be the equivalent of $144. 

Sure seems
like a lot of work to ensure a system of taxation for EVERYONE that
would require an odometer reading at registration at a DEQ which would
add $5 for the documentation without a smog check. Seems to me if it
applies to everyone (i.e., all road vehicles), does not subsidize
privatization of the tax (i.e., the infrastructure, collection, and rate
of tax), it is fairly straightforward. It will be only when are tax
structure is applied _equally_ (which we do very poorly) that this will
make sense. 

My particular issue is I bought an EV that I will never
break even for my cost (even with subsidies- if the only question was
money), that I can't take out of Portland unless I want to triple my
travel time (or more) just to figure out how - not even if to charge it,
and a vehicle that CBS said was going to fail (catch on fire, not catch
on, only support a fringe of society, etc..) and on top of that become
the target of complicated schemes to not pay my 'FAIR SHARE' as reported
on the Oregon website. 

I haven't been able to convince any neighbors,
family, and friends that buying an EV is such a good idea (even though I
offer a test drive, show them the room, talk about functionally avoiding
paying gasoline) that some of them have still gone out and bought a new
Dodge Caravan, a Prius, a Jeep, and a Honda. Apparently, they didn't
know what a tax advantage it was! 

Naturally, everyone's point has some
merit but we are not focusing on the 'big picture' here. We are looking
at complicated fixes that create more messes, are intrinsically
punitive, and highlight a problem as being a group or segment of the
population (obviously it is those EV'ERS who are the problem by not
paying what is due). The problem is that our cultural imperative is to
do away with any collective responsibility for each other. we no longer
want to pay taxes on services we need. We (and our representatives
support it) are unwilling to pay those taxes, and are completely
unwilling to support for the long-term fixes because that would require
change (in both my behaviors and accepting that my inalienable rights
come with apparently alienable responsibilities). 

So, Oregon is
barking up the wrong tree. The ODOT webpage sounds reasonable, is
probably supported by reasonable people who are trying to spend less,
raise more, and make sure the status quo (majority) are satisfied with
the interpretation and the reasons for implementation. Unfortunately,
the way this is being presented will result in a tax that will
rightfully so be viewed as another punitive reason not to buy an EV and
evidence that someone is trying to 'get away' with something. 

there is the question of what 'fair' or 'fairly' really means......So
far, I've only bought a car that cost $10,000 more than a comparable ICE
(with subsidies) and then cleaned up the environment for your kids and
grandkids by replacing a Buick with a Leaf.... my bad. 

Scott Christie

On 12.06.2012 11:26, Lee White wrote: 

> This is a great
conversation; my suggestion rides on John's idea.
> Perhaps the
suggestion of introduction and integration of a tax should
> be based on
the percent or number of EV's registered in the state. The
> tax could
be progressive and stepped up/revised as more vehicles hit the
> road.

> As for how the tax is done, there is not clear answer, but for
> perhaps EV members could track their EV mileage monthly and
provide an
> annual report on usage. This average usage number along
with the current
> gas tax amount could be used to figure out how much
the state is missing
> in taxes.
> Lee
> -----Original
> From: oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org
[mailto:oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org] On
> Behalf Of john.p.christian
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:00 AM
> To: 'Alan Batie';
oeva-list at oeva.org
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] tax issues.
members and friends,
> My 2 cents:
> I think all of us understand
that going forward we need to pay our fair
> share to maintain the
infrastructure. The primary issues are these:
> - In order to send a
clear message that Oregon is encouraging the
> reduction
> in fossil
fuel use - this tax plan needs to be delayed until a specific
> year
or a specific percentage of non-polluting vehicles are in use.
> - We
need to make it clear that the State of Oregon is not going to take
advantage of us just because our numbers are small and no one will
notice if
> we are unfairly treated, overly taxed, or we are forced to
sacrifice our
> basic freedoms. 
> Best regards,
> John P.
> Oregon Electric Vehicles Association - Chairperson
> (503) 704-2155
> -----Original Message-----
From: oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org [mailto:oeva-list-bounces at oeva.org]
> Behalf Of Alan Batie
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:35 AM
> To:
oeva-list at oeva.org
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] tax issues.
> This link
posted on OEVA's facebook page makes a lot of good points:
> -idea-just-wont-die/
> Oeva-list mailing
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> Oeva-list mailing
> Oeva-list at oeva.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120612/e2076d6d/attachment.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list