[caseysoftware]

The EV tax applies to people who a) casue a disproportionate amount of wear & tear on the roads vs ICE vehicles and b) are generally higher income in the state.

When you look at taxation from a "charge the people who use it" or the "the rich should pay more" perspective, this appears to address both.

Is the problem simply that you want to pay less taxes?

[gs17]

> casue a disproportionate amount of wear & tear on the roads vs ICE vehicles

If it was, it would be based on vehicle weight and distance driven. Where I am, at least, it's simply a tax on efficiency.

[vel0city]

No, I just want to pay a fair amount of taxes. Honestly the gas taxes should be increased or we should move to a tax structure where it's mileage, weight, and emissions based.

Paying 3x the same taxes while having less externalities isn't fair.

[caseysoftware]

As I've cited elsewhere on this thread:

> With that information, the British newspaper calculated that BEVs [battery electric vehicles] could expose roads to 2.24 times more damage than gas cars.

Ref: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bevs-could-also-damage-ro...

If that's true, then 12-15k miles in an EV would be equivalent to 27-33k miles in a gas car in the externalities of road wear & tear.. so "taxes equivalent to 35k miles" is at most 25% higher in a "damage per mile equivalent" but could be as little as 6% using the averages.

If your actual mileage is over 15625/year, then you're paying less than the equivalent.

What's your annual mileage?

[vel0city]

27 isn't 35 no matter how many times you say it is.

> If your actual mileage is over 15625/year, then you're paying less than the equivalent.

The average is less than that by a decent bit, so more than half of US cars are paying more even with your unproven, contorted math based on some estimates done once in the 70s and never really looked into closely again.

It's also assuming the difference in weight. The closest hybrid I would have bought instead is only like 100kg lighter than my EV. And it gets like 40mpg, better than 35mpg.

It would also mean semi trucks should pay like 20,000x more in registration fees. Does this make sense?

> What's your annual mileage?

Less than 15k on that car (like most people), so even with your assumed math it's overpaying.

[pclmulqdq]

Semi trucks pay huge amounts in gas taxes because they guzzle gas like nobody's business. It's only the EVs that aren't paying for their road wear in gas taxes.

[vel0city]

20,000x more in taxes?

[turkeyboi]

Realistically speaking, they probably do. Do you know how much fuel they use and miles they drive per year?

[rjrjrjrj]

12-15k miles in a Ford SuperDuty is equivalent to how far in a gas Civic? I suspect that driver isn't being charged accordingly.

[caseysoftware]

Registration fees are likely the same or close but when you factor in gas taxes (the original comparison here), the Ford is definitely paying more both based on fuel type and mpg.

[rjrjrjrj]

More, sure. But not remotely proportional to the increased wear and tear from vehicle weight.

[caseysoftware]

Possible. How far off is it?

[loeg]

You keep repeating it, but it's reductive at best and incorrect as a general assumption.

[caseysoftware]

Is there another model you'd recommend to estimate/compare road wear and tear?

[loeg]

1:1 is at least as good a default assumption.

[caseysoftware]

Based on numerous studies, we already know it's not 1:1 so why bother starting with a default assumption that we know is wrong?

Do you have an alternative analysis? I'd love to check it out.