Getting rid of the gas tax and switching to a mileage tax that factors in vehicle weight would help with this. If it costs you more every year to drive a bigger, heavier car, you’re going to want something smaller.
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
117 points (89.3% liked)
[Dormant] Electric Vehicles
3201 readers
2 users here now
We have moved to:
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion.
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling.
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I like the idea of a size tax.
I also like the idea of extended driver's license requirements to drive some of these monsters vs a sedan.
California is basically doing tax trials based on total mileage travelled per year, but not size.
My understanding from people I know in the CA Govt. legislature is that they have to tax based on what is known and one could easily have modifications on vehicles that would go unnoticed (truck lift kits, rice burners, hack jobs, etc). Mileage otoh is submitted during tax season already.
Very few, if any, modifications are going to dramatically change a vehicle's curb weight. Of course, electrics weigh more than similar ICEs, so a better reason to skip a weight based tax is so as to not disincentivize electrics.
Edit: Also, what do you mean "rice burners"? Afaik, rice burner refers to any vehicle of Asian origin whether tuned or not. And trust me, tuning a car is not going to increase the curb weight by more than a few pounds.
Sorry, I got ahead of myself without clarifying. The idea of taxation based on the size of "stock" vehicles or even a stock vehicles estimated mpg was turned down because considerations such as: Vehicle Body Modifications, Vehicle Engine Modifications, 5th Wheels, Trailers, Poorly Tuned or Mal-Maintained Vehicles and many others listed means the end result would be a poor assessment for more than 2% of registered vehicles and thus resulting in not taxing appropriately.
So while they can do it (tax by size or empg) by pulling any data that the DMV or tax filings show, those considerations hamper the idea's effectiveness in taxation for the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).
As a result, Road Charge (mileage) was adopted in CA as the future replacement for the existing 7.5% + gas tax. https://caroadcharge.com/
We have a gas guzzler tax but for some reason trucks and SUVs are exempted...
As long as they do it by checking the odometer once a year and not with some kind of ridiculous privacy-destroying GPS-based scheme, I'm all for it.
(There are some dipshits who try to justify the latter by claiming they need to know where you drive to send the revenue to the right jurisdiction. Bullshit! They can just measure traffic volumes on each road segment -- which they already do -- and allocate proportional to that instead.)
Agreed you don't need the mileage aspect just weight and VAT. However your insurance company app is likely already pulling GPS shenanigans and if your OnStar or whatever "roadside assistance" GPS box and cellular modem are enabled a lot more than just your location are being shared with anyone willing to pay for it.
Not on me, they aren't. My newest vehicle is from the mid-2000s and none of them have tracking built in.
On a related note, I can't own an ~~EV~~ electric car because nobody will sell me one that respects my privacy.
Edit: I do own several EVs: they're bicycles, not cars. (They are my and my wife's "daily drivers," though.)
I disabled the OnStar box on mine and went over it with a flipper zero. Overkill I know but it was a fun afternoon seeing just how many radios and how much signal generation there is in a modern vehicle.
The only radio now is remote start and key auth.
Sidenote if you have an older car you might want to get an OBD2 lock, they're 30 bucks and are a pretty handy theft deterrent. Metal ones tend to be better.
My manual transmissions are an even better theft deterrent at this point I think, LOL!
(Also, my two oldest cars predate OBD2.)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The problem with that is that EVs are heavier, meaning that smaller EVs would be taxed at the same level as SUVs or trucks. But it might at least incentivise people to go for smaller ICEs, and switching to mileage tax might be necessary anyway.
The problem with that is that EVs are heavier
I wish this myth would die already. EVs are only heavier when they make them giant and obscenely inefficient, requiring larger and larger batteries.
Small EVs are comparable in weight to their comparable gas models.
I up voted you because the weights aren't that drastically different rn, but a Chevy Bolt is 3500lb while a larger civic with more cargo and passenger room is 3000.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Even if you don't make them giant and obscenely inefficient, a 100kwh pack is gonna weigh over 300kg. Doesn't matter if that gives it 1000 miles of range or 400 miles.
And how much does an internal combustion engine, a transmission, a fuel tank, a driveshaft, a starter motor, and an oil sump weigh?
Typically, less. EVs are consistently 10%-15% heavier than equivalent ICEs.
Weight is just not one of the advantages that EVs have over ICEs. This is not the hill you want to die on.
Fortunately, all the other advantages greatly exceed that weight penalty.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You don't need a 100kWh pack. Most of the smaller cars are closer to 60.
If you’re comparing an ICE vehicle that can get 400 miles a tank to an EV then you are being completely disingenuous to compare it to an EV that only gets 100-150 miles of range. They’re not comparable. An EV that gets even close to the same range is going to way much much more than a comparable ICE vehicle.
If you got 400 miles on a 100kWh pack you'll be getting 300 on a 60kWh pack.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
But isn’t it the weight that does more damage to the roads that the taxes are intended to pay for?
the weight does damage yes, but the lionshare of road damage is caused by shipping trucks because they are magnitudes heavier than a civilian vehicle while loaded. It's the reason truck weigh stations exist
…and a weight based tax would put the lion’s share of the tax burden on shipping trucks.
I think we’re in agreement here?
Do you think an electric car that weighs 1000lbs more than similar ICE cars is doing that much more damage to the road? And compare the damage cars, suvs, etc, would do versus box trucks, tractor-trailers, etc. There is no comparison to the damages between the two classes of vehicles. While true, an SUV will do more damage to the road than an econobox hatchback, even combined they don't equal the damage a fully loaded tractor-trailer will do.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
But that would disproportionately hit poor people. Generally they have to live farther out, where rents are cheaper, and in much of the US public transit is a pile of shit.
Hell, even in places where it isn’t it’s still painfully inconvenient. I live in a fairly transit-friendly city, and it takes my husband 45 minutes to an hour to get to work by transit, or 10-12 minutes by car.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products.
Weird, Nissan doesn't have a problem selling Versas for $16k? Chevy doesn't have a problem selling a Malibu for $25k? Honda doesn't have a problem selling a Civic for $25k or an Accord for 28k?
And what happens to the customers who literally can't afford the expensive models? There's a lost sale for every one of them.
This is just fundamentally flawed logic.
In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.
They've skewed that way because of CAFE standards.
I think you're right, but I also think it's insane that we think of 25000 dollar vehicles as the budget models. An affordable car is something a middle-class income could afford out of pocket in my opinion. Who can spare 25k nowadays?
Everyone and their mother is comfortable sitting on a car loan and $25k is pretty reasonable for a middle class family these days.
What still blows my mind is how common it is to I see people rolling around in $80k trucks.
I'm not comfortable with that. 25,000 is $400 a month (5 years). But yeah trucks are ridiculous. People gotta be taking out 8-10 years to pay for those
In our stage of capitalism, these arent even exceptions. 16k for a Versa. Is probably the best deal I've seen in forever, because almost no one makes sub $20,000 cars now. The last New cars I saw for that were economy cars (Sonic/fiesta/fit etc)
Weird, Nissan doesn't have a problem selling Versas for $16k? Chevy doesn't have a problem selling a Malibu for $25k? Honda doesn't have a problem selling a Civic for $25k or an Accord for 28k?
Malibu used to be sub $20,000 new. (2008) Civics were $13-15,000 in 2005 brand new. These prices are outrageous for the amount of car you get by comparison. $25000 for a civic? It's small and goes vroom. For 3,000 more you have an Accord! Compared to an Accord Civics have no storage, small legroom, an engine that makes them zippy for sure, but it's not as if the Accord is a slouch. At this stage mpg is comparable.
And what happens to the customers who literally can't afford the expensive models? There's a lost sale for every one of them.
If you're not interested in playing the game of taking on massive debt Then that's fine - in their eyes you can keep buying used cars. For this type of person, they've fought so hard to make every car so unfixable to the average person. Parts and service departments are free to make a killing if you can't fix it yourself.
For those that insist on buying dates models you CAN fix - You can forever own hand me downs with ghosts under the hood, gremlins in the electrical lines and odometers with 6 digits. It's just a numbers game where eventually you will buy one that shits out way sooner than you can afford before your mentality suggests "maybe reaching deep on a CC and getting something with warranties wouldn't be so bad?"
Civics were $13-15,000 in 2005 brand new.
This might be hard to believe but 2005 was nearly 20 years ago...cars have improved in nearly every way possible, then add 20 years of inflation to that and it starts to sound like a good deal...
If you're not interested in playing the game of taking on massive debt Then that's fine - in their eyes you can keep buying used cars.
So they...don't like profit? Because that also contradicts OP.
"Improved"?
If you actually think that's true, then I have a subscription to your seat belt to sell you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Your prices are way off. The only car that can be bought brand new for less than $20k in the USA is the Mitsubishi Mirage, and from experience it sucks to drive. A Malibu and a Civic are both like $29k, but actually Chevy just quit making Malibu's this year.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wouldn't CAFE standards push them to smaller more efficient cars, or am I misunderstanding what CAFE standards are?
As for affordable cars, I think it's fairly easy for the auto industry to just raise prices while extending financing terms longer and longer and advertise $299/mo (with 180 mo financing, $6k down, at 8% interest excluding taxes and fees).
I think what they’re saying is that CAFE standards just encourage companies to make and market vehicles where those standards don’t apply, or at least are less strict, such as “light trucks”
Yes, exactly. CAFE carves out exceptions for bigger vehicles, so they just stopped making small ones altogether.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The car companies went huge, they made their standard vehicles so big and heavy they qualified for EPA standards meant for work trucks.
Just blatant fuck you to regulations and people's health.
it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits.
This is also why cars are loaded with electronics now. They're high margin add-ons to inflate the value of the car with little cost.
Also they break and are almost impossible to fix, so basically throw the car out after the lease is done and get a new one.
they're not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles
Huh, that's strange. I'm not really interested in a $25,000+ EV. Turns out that a $1,200 ebike is faster than my car (due to traffic) and costs orders of magnitude less to maintain and charge. I've basically just stopped driving.
Perhaps my interest will be piqued when they can develop a sub $25k EV, without half the "smart" features like subscriptions for Bluetooth audio and heated seats. Until then, I'll use my old car like...a dozen times a year.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Damn, I guess the nissan leaf needs a recall, it's top cheap. How unfortunate that car manufacturers ignore a sizable chunk of their market
Dacia Spring. Small, light, 300km city range. 19000€ from dealer. I bought mine used with 2000km driven and two doors needed painting for 6000€. Half year old. I drive about 100km every day in the city so far so good.
view more: next ›