[Oeva-list] tax issues fair would be paying EV drivers

mike overton mikeov1 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 17 23:04:22 PDT 2012


Don,
I agree with much of your logic, but I think it would be too difficult for
most non-EV people to accept since they are still in denial about the need
to get off oil.

I suppose that people drive EVs for a variety of reasons, but many do so to
help the country stop buying oil and to help the global environment.  I
think most EV owners accept that this is not really the cheapest way to get
around or the most convenient.  But they altruistically choose to make a
positive difference in the world.

Perhaps we should take the same approach on road taxes.  I think most of us
agree that unless mass transit gets a lot better,  we need roads on which
to drive, and that it takes money to build and maintain those roads.  So
why not embrace the vehicle mile tax as a way to help our state?

We can be the leaders in the program.  If we embrace this instead of
fighting it then we are far more likely to have a seat at the table.  We
can work to define and implement the next steps such as getting get
high-mileage ICE vehicles added so that it is fair and that all vehicles
pay a reasonable fee to use the roads.

I think the rate should be tied to inflation so that we do not have argue
every year about the rate.  It should go up every year so that the state
has a cost adjusted constant amount of revenue to work with.  That is one
of the worst problems with the gas tax - it is not tied to either the price
of gas or the general inflation so effectively it goes down every year.

I agree with Larry W and others that the road planning process has
significant waste and has made some poor decisions.  To some extent that
happens in any organization private or public.  And while it is easy to see
in hindsite it can be harder in real-time.  One way to cut waste is to have
predictable funding so that people can make plans once and then implement.
If the funding changes every year then we have to re-plan multiple times
before the work occurs and that can eat up a significant part of the
resources.

That is my two hundred watt hours on the situation.

Mike

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120617/4ad9ac80/attachment.html 


More information about the Oeva-list mailing list