101–110 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely most electricity for EVs will be consumed at home, though.
In Germany, water used for watering your lawn is taxed differently from water you use to fill your tub. I'm sure we could mandate a separate meter for recharging cars.
(I think we do it smarter for electricity: the first x kWh at one rate, then up from there, among other billing complexities).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany, water used for watering your lawn is taxed differently from water you use to fill your tub. I'm sure we could mandate a separate meter for recharging cars.
Just curious, are there 2 meters? (I think we do it smarter for electricity: the first x kWh at one rate, then up from there, among other billing complexities).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, are there 2 meters? (I think we do it smarter for electricity: the first x kWh at one rate, then up from there, among other billing complexities).
AFAIK: If you want to claim cheaper rate for part of it, you need to install a second certified meter for that part. If you are willing to go by default rate (which at least in some places assumes some ratio) you don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like an implementation of the 'mass surveillance' solution to distribution. That probably appeals to many politicians, but to me that is intolerable. It would also require different governments to cooperate; New York would have to be able and willing to redistribute part of my milage tax to a foreign country when that country says my car has been there. I don't know if that's feasible, but cynically I assu…
You know that's already happening right? For example, SunPass in FL will bill you by your license plate as you go through automatic readers, and mail you a bill to California if that is where your car is registered.
I don't find 'some surveillance happens already, so we may as well go all in' a compelling argument.
I'm not really sure there's a good answer here. Fuel tax is 43 cents a litre. Australian cars right now avg about 13.1 litres per 100km. So you're looking at ~$5.6 per 100km for fuel tax. This tax is adding $2.5 tax per 100km for electric. Right now, EVs are absolutely creating an regressive tax situation with regards to fuel. Those who can afford to buy newer, efficient cars can usually save money on tax over those…
Melbourne, the State Capital of Victoria, has a big problem with congestion at peak hours.
If road use charging like in Singapore or London was introduced, it would shift usage to non-peak hours, and raise sufficient revenue to offset fuel excise.
But that's politically difficult - whereas applying a tax to EVs, which currently very few people use, is much easier.
I don't understand the opposition to this. These vehicles continue to use roads but don't pay any taxes that would help maintain roads if they were gas or diesel cars. How is that fair?
As for the loss of revenue from the gas tax, I think a two-phase solution would be best to solve that. In the first phase (now), make up the revenue by raising the gas tax. In the second phase (once ICE vehicles are almost gone), ban new ICE vehicles and then implement this tax. This way, the tax would never result in someone buying an ICE vehicle instead of an EV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of road damage is done by heavy trucks. Don't need to tax these cars at all.
But you still need to maintain existing and build new roads, and not only trucks drive on the road. What about snow? It needs to be removed for normal cars as well as trucks.
Growth should pay for growth, so, no, we also don't need to pay for new roads.
Roads are also funded by property tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also: taxes are arbitrarily imposed through coercion, therefore they are not legitimate under an ethical standpoint, no matter how one wants to cut it. The idea of a "social contract" to justify taxation is absurd, to say the least (did you ever sign it voluntarily?). If the government can print its own money (which you're forced to use), why does it need to make you work and pay taxes to get that money back? The mon…
Because inflation is considered to be bad (not sure whether it's worse than the tax system though), but more importantly, an inflation tax is regressive in that richer people can afford to store their wealth in things that do not inflate away (and even deflate due to this kind of speculation). Also, taxes are probably a smarter way to deal with negative externalities than regulation.
Laws and regulations are the reason as to why taxes exist in the first place. The government holds the monopoly of force, therefore it can issue any laws and regulations it wants. Because of that it can have a monopoly on the currency and tax its people.
Everyone benefits almost equally from the road system, regardless of whether they drive. Emergency services, food and other goods, the entire economy depends on the roads. Taxation to fund road maintenance should be central and universal, and not directed at individual vehicles, other than perhaps a sales tax based on weight.
That sounds "fair" but amounts to a massive subsidy of diesel powered heavy trucking. TBF, it is possible to build roads that trucks do not quickly destroy, and maybe the expense of doing that makes sense in some cases. Everything except heavy trucking would pay much less to maintain roads, but for trucks wearing them out. While you suggest a tax based on vehicle weight, which might also seem "fair," that still does…
The correct way of looking at this isn’t by asking “what’s fair” but instead “what we want to incentivise”. People moving out of cities? Ramp up city property taxes. People moving into cities (more efficient)? Subsidise transport of goods. More green energy? Tax CO2 / fuel, subsidise (clean) electricity. Less trucks, more railways? Tax trucks more, but this hardly makes sense unless rail a viable alternative (i.e. there’s enough railways leading to the city).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the cost of oil spills? It's not like gas and diesel magically flow out of the pump either.
I never said anything that implied gas wasn't an issue .. simply stating a truth bomb about EV's environmental and human costs; lithium mining being the biggest one.
Please tell us, what is a good estimate for the impact of producing and EV on the planet? And how does it compare to a gas vehicle? If that's too much work I'd be glad to learn more about battery production, since that's the point of difference.