[Oeva-list] tax issues fair would be paying EV drivers
lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 19 00:51:20 PDT 2012
As much as I'm complaining, I'm not necessarily anti-ODOT or anti-tax.
I personally believe ODOT's use of taxes is one of the best values around. I do feel like the $100 or so I spend on road taxes
is a better deal than the $1000's spent on other state income taxes.
But that doesn't mean I feel like paying a bunch of money and having pain of having yet another bill so some entitled gas guzzlers can
save a nickle a gallon. (actually it wouldn't even be close to THAT much for quite a while)
And I ACTUALLY HAVE an old 1986 F250 4WD with roof racks and side racks. I gets TERRIBLE mileage. So it's not like
I'm just trying to foist this on others. But I don't drive the damn thing unless I have to. IT GREATLY annoys me that other people expect
to just waste resources that took millions of years to create and they want to penalize the good environmental stewards to do so. And the savings
they would get is not even in the noise of gas prices. If 1 out of 30 cars became an EV, then their tax would only have to GO UP ONE LOUSY |
STINKING PENNY!!!!!!!!! The unbelievable greed here is just not acceptable to me.
A lie is a lie and I still feel the need to continue to act to stop the brainwashing.
Lie #1. The fuel tax is unsustainable. (false)
Well, it is true in the sense that nothing in the universe lasts forever, but in reality, gas/diesel/natural
gas is still going to be around for our lifetimes and can even be obtained from crops for as long as their is photosynthesis.
So I believe that gas/ethanol/biodiesel/natural gas is going to around for a long long time, but still it's a good idea not to waste
it or at least encourage that it gets used where it's really needed and not some ridiculously overpowered
glamourmobile. Why not tax it then and add it to the cost of fuels to encourage conservation and discourage waste?
It's the idiots at ODOT who keep repeating this lie just to get other people to stop thinking critically..The reason they even use the
word "unsustainable" is probably to get brain-dead hippies to nod their heads in acknowledgment....yes these are not the droids
you are looking for...move along..nothing to see here....just send us the check and things will be "sustainable again"...
Lie #2. It is impossible to keep on raising the fuel tax. (false)
Tell that to Washington and California and all the other states that have higher fuel taxes than Oregon. It it's truly impossible, then let some
other state find it out. I pretty much guarantee that if the price of gasoline is $10/gallon, then the tax is not going to be 30 cents. They are
gonna keep raising it and the consumer really won't care or notice as long as it's a small part of the price and they feel ODOT needs the money
Lie #3. ODOT needs money desperately. (false). They are perfectly willing to walk away from millions of dollars in the Eddyville project. If they
really needed money, they would have fought harder and earlier to at least get what they paid for and at LEAST take them to court and make sure
their future customers knew they would walk away from a job gone bad. Instead they settled very very quietly out of court and the construction
company doesn't even have a single reference to what was one of their biggest projects on their website.
This is about a small group within ODOT that is trying to justify their existence and budgets and all the millions they
have spent so far by implementing a big proposal. By their own accounting, this proposed tax was going to cost millions of
dollars in order to bring in only several hundred thousand. If this was just about money, then at least it would make some sense.
THIS (i.e. fiscal irresponsibility) is probably why the darn thing has failed to this point. The legislators ACTUALLY HAVE MORE COMMON
SENSE THAN THE EV PEOPLE HERE. who want to pay their "fair share" even if it cause the government to lose MONEY :)
. The legislators at least have the common sense to not want to implement a plan that costs 10x more money than it takes in! Y'all should
be ashamed of yourselves!
Lie #4. This is about "fairness". (false). What "fairness" are they trying to implement?
a). Users need to pay the cost of roads?
Why not charge per passenger mile then? When 2 people are in a car they are getting twice the benefit right?
How about people who ride the bus? If 60 people are on a bus, then why not make an ODOT surcharge?
Why not charge bicyclists? There are probably MORE bicycle miles than EV miles! Is it just about
Drivers? Well why not charge the truck drivers individually instead of the companies then?
It's pretty obvious that they don't even believe their rationale that "users" pay for the road. It's an
extremely flexible "morality" that can be twisted to justify just about any tax on anyone, including someone who buys
groceries. What this IS is about moving the tax burden AROUND. They want to charge us MORE so they can
charge someone else LESS. Which is that they want to charge fuel EFFICENT cars MORE so that gas guzzlers pay
LESS. The EV is just the most extreme of this, which is why they want us to actually pay even MORE than the damn
gas fuel efficient car like a prius. I'm sure then the next thing they will do is to try and make the prius drivers feel guilty'
that the EV guys are paying more than them and play one persons guilt against another until both are paying 2x more than
the humvee driver grinning at the ridiculousness of it.
. Then the prius will pay a mileage charge too. Pretty soon all cars will pay a mileage charge (maybe even trucks) and the idea
of a sin-tax on gas guzzlers or trucks paying a weight-mile will die for eternity....and we'll all be paying for truck damage and the
truck drivers will be lobbying that the bridges need to built for 200,000 lbs mega-trucks with special lanes... because well...truck benefit everyone.
b). EV's don't pay anything to maintain the road?
We pay income taxes and registration and license fees. FURTHERMORE we often have 2 cars, but only drive the EV for short distance.
(which means we use the roads less) So that means we pay double for registration, etc.. We sure as hell don't pay $0.00. We actually pay
quite a bit. And we pay taxes on the Electricity we use too!
c). EV's wear out the roads and need to pay for them too?
First, we DO pay taxes,registration (as mentioned above), so we DO pay. The question is are we paying enough?
Again as I have stated earlier that they want us to pay so that a truck that weighs 20X more, only pays 4 times more in
weight-mile tax. and a heavier ICE car pays LESS. Is that "fair"? Now, since in many cases the trucks are actually out of state, they don't even
pay the income taxes/registration fees that we DO pay. Trucks are FAR worse scientifically and are actually the only non-studded cars,
doing appreciable damage to the pavement and as many have mentioned and I believe it, studded tires are a much bigger
wear factor than EV's. IMHO the reason we don't charge the trucks MORE is because other states don't AND the trucking
industry has a good lobby as compared to the EV industry.
Here's an example. The trucking industry SUED the DMV because they raised the rates for getting driving records for new hires
from $2/driver to $9.68/driver. So they are willing to sue ODOT for something as piddly
as $7.68 /driver http://fleetowner.com/fleet-management/trucking-group-sues-oregon-over-450-dmv-fee-increase
That's how they can have 20x the weight and pay 5times the tax.
our "lobby" sucks. And unless we fight, we are gonna get steamrolled...literally roadkill
I'm feeling kind of lonely here...If ANYONE supports me making these arguments, I'd love to hear about it. If I'm just being annoying I'd
like to just give up. It actually requires a lot of energy and I'm getting tired.
If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world.
Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Oeva-list