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

Greg Long greglongoregon at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 21:26:05 PDT 2012

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

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.

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.


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

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list