Epic fiscal facepalm, State levies tax to make up for loss of tax for electric cars!

State to charge electric-car owners $100 a year

Owners of electric cars in Washington may be glad they're no longer buying gasoline, but soon they'll be assessed a $100 annual fee to supplement road funding supported by state gas taxes.

Linky-poo

Some more of the story. . .

Owners of electric cars in Washington state don't buy gasoline or pay gas taxes, but they're soon going to be hit with a $100 fee to own the battery-operated cars.

A section of Washington state law that takes effect next year will require electric-car owners to pay a $100 annual fee for road and highway improvements, intended to compensate for the gas taxes they no longer pay.

Oh lordy-lordy-lordy!

This is so damned stupid, stupid people should be protesting because it gives them a bad name!

Or do you fellow ATS'ers applaud the idea?
*gag*

electric cars create wear and tear on the roads just like gasoline powered cars, so why should they not help to pay for roadway maintenance?

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
electric cars create wear and tear on the roads just like gasoline powered cars, so why should they not help to pay for roadway maintenance?

Property taxes are paid in part, for maintenance of roads. State and local taxes pay for that as well. This is just another reason to levy taxes! (In my humble opinion)

You can't honestly believe that the number of electric cars on the road would have such an effect on the conditions, do you?

I don't see the problem, there isn't a law saying they can't levy the tax on them.

He'll if you can afford an electric car you can afford to pay the hundred bucks. And you'd still make out better than gas car drivers

reply to post by beezzer


well my car creates wear an tear so why wouldn't theirs? i pay highway maintenance taxes through each gallon of gas i buy and i assume it's that way Washington as well? perhaps i'm wrong on the current laws in that state.

here's what i pay.

Pennsylvania 31.2 tax per gallon of gas 38.1 per gallon of diesel 1.1 “Other Taxes” include a 1.1 cpg UST (gasoline only)

Washington 37.5 gas 37.5 diesel 0.01023 "Other Taxes" include a 7/10's percent (0.0007 cpg) HASMAT fee, .00953 cpg Oil Spill Response fee

according to this site. www.pennsylvaniagasprices.com...

100$ a year is pretty cheap considering.

They add the tax onto the gasoline prices in Washington,vas with most states.

Still don't see the issue. They increase taxes on cigarettes to pay for stuff the state wants. This is just them making sure all road users pay for what they use

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by beezzer

 

well my car creates wear an tear so why wouldn't theirs? i pay highway maintenance taxes through each gallon of gas i buy and i assume it's that way Washington as well? perhaps i'm wrong on the current laws in that state.

Yeah they create wear and tear, but most electric style cars I've seen are small, and light and don't really take up a huge foot print.. kind of like gas guzzling sports cars, SUVs, and big Trucks.. all of these vehicles have the potential to leak fluids on the roads, causing more damage than just driving on them.

And all this "we use x to pay for y" stuff is kind of funny really, I haven't seen a major road repair in my area until recently when they installed an overpass that took them 10 years to plan.

why shouldn't owners of electric cars pay their fair share? after all they are as much using the road as any other vehicle and thus add just as much wear and tear to it. if there is a gas tax on petroleum using vehicles than it is only fair that electric vehicles users also pay. i think $100 is probably a heck of a lot cheaper than most people pay with their gas, i would think some sort of per mile charge would be more appropriate and more equal to the way gasoline vehicle owners have to pay. after all fair is fair. since they don't catch you at the pumps then they need you to pay your fair share somehow. even if it was not for roads why should only SOME people pay the tax and others not?

Originally posted by generik
even if it was not for roads why should only SOME people pay the tax and others not?

You just described the new american way.



I see everybody's point, and agree they should pay.. but honestly this is a segway for them to start taxing more and more things that become an alternative lifestyle. Pretty soon if you try to get away from paying extra money, you're going to end up paying extra money.

Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked. I didn't think that there would be so many people who would be enthusiastic or pro taxes.

I guess I see it in a larger picture.

Imagine you quit smoking. Should your lifestyle be levied because you are no longer contributing to that tax?
If your income falls, should you still be levied the same tax when you were making more?
If you carpool, should you pay more to make up for the loss?
Should you pay more if you drive an SUV versus a VW?

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, I must say I'm a bit shocked. I didn't think that there would be so many people who would be enthusiastic or pro taxes.

I guess I see it in a larger picture.

Imagine you quit smoking. Should your lifestyle be levied because you are no longer contributing to that tax?
If your income falls, should you still be levied the same tax when you were making more?
If you carpool, should you pay more to make up for the loss?
Should you pay more if you drive an SUV versus a VW?

Well, like I stated, I'm not for the addition of extra taxes, and I'm under the belief that we'll use "x to pay for y" is false. Who knows, will they legitimately use the money for repairing infrastructure, or will they use it for other purposes? If the answer to that is yes, I believe if they didn't take it all out at one time, it wouldn't be a huge hit. But statistically, 1600 cars isn't really a lot of extra "wear and tear"

reply to post by beezzer


They charge a tax on cigs that only smokers pay, they do the same with alcohol. Taxation has never been universal or equal from person to person

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by beezzer

 

They charge a tax on cigs that only smokers pay, they do the same with alcohol. Taxation has never been universal or equal from person to person

Well said! Again, this is just an excuse to garner more money.

reply to post by beezzer


Oh my, that sounds tragic. You should see what our council tax costs, just so we can get our bins collected...

Don't States and Municipalities already tax electric power and charge franchise fees. Seems they are kind of getting taxed twice for the energy if that $100 fee passes.

I am not a proponent of electric auto's as currently sold to the public and believe they are way overpriced and under-ranged as presently de-engineered. Look up the EV-1 and its range and capabilities and tell me the public is not being snookered.

The current electric autos available range hardly makes for any concern about road wear or usage, when I see one I can assure you I do not have jealousy they don't have to fill up or worry of lost tax revenue, instead I have pity for those who make such poor economic decisions by buying one and wonder at their actual intellectual capacity vs percieved capacity.

I think it was PT Barnum who said "one is born each day"

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by beezzer

 

Oh my, that sounds tragic. You should see what our council tax costs, just so we can get our bins collected...

Cost/amount is secondary.

It's the fact that they levied ANOTHER tax!

reply to post by beezzer

You've got it right Beez. Don't be surprised you're one of the few looking at the bigger picture.

It's kind of like the city I live in raising utilities a few years ago because the residents weren't using enough gas and electric. Go figure.

reply to post by beezzer

I didn't think that there would be so many people who would be enthusiastic or pro taxes.

Oh there are a TON of pro-tax members here... as long as it's someone else paying them and not themselves.

The government will find a way to make up for their lost revenue. They always do.

I like your quitting smoking analogy.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by beezzer

 

You've got it right Beez. Don't be surprised you're one of the few looking at the bigger picture.

It's kind of like the city I live in raising utilities a few years ago because the residents weren't using enough gas and electric. Go figure.

Yup - not a lot different than housing losing 50% market value and taxing authorities barely adjusting property tax valuations by a few percent - only those going to tax office and disputing those are getting real valuation reflected.

It is just this type of thing about government growth I have problems with as it loathes to meaningfully cut expenses when theres economic slump but promotes that very thing in the private sector - starve the beast!

Any new taxes should be fought tooth and nail in this economic climate. The Washington State one is really stupid when one considers the low, low, low revenue to be derived, what maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, hell it'll take more just to manage than they take in using government methods.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Any new taxes should be fought tooth and nail in this economic climate. The Washington State one is really stupid when one considers the low, low, low revenue to be derived, what maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, hell it'll take more just to manage than they take in using government methods.

2 points.

One, yes. Any new taxes should be fought tooth and nail. The 100 dollars, (why worry, it's just a 100 bucks!) is just the start.

Two. I wonder how much larger they can now justify the growth of this new tax and/or department!