An Anonymous Coward writes in with an article from Vice.com.
A generous state tax break has helped make Georgia the number two state for electric vehicles, and made Atlanta the top market for the compact Nissan Leaf. Both the Leaf and the higher-end Tesla sedans are now common sights in and around metro Atlanta, where more than 10,500 are registered.
But this year, Georgia lawmakers needed to raise nearly $1 billion to patch up crumbling roads, highways, and bridges. So they are pulling the plug on that $5,000 tax credit — a move budget analysts say will contribute $66 million to the state's coffers in 2016 and nearly $190 million by 2020.
But it gets worse for electric vehicle (EV) boosters. Legislators are adding a $200-a-year annual fee for owners to offset the loss of gasoline taxes that drivers would otherwise pay to maintain roads.
The Economist has a breakdown of the current system of the tax credits and the expected economic impact of the changes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Sunday April 05 2015, @12:04AM
I can't help but point out (and I'm surprised nobody seems to have mentioned it already on this thread) that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight [wikipedia.org]. Without wanting to unduly labour this point (since we've already been through this in other discussions), it's worth recognising that as soon as you allow trucks on your road, the damage done by cars fades in significance.
Do you consider it fair to use a service and not pay for it?
No, but I'd consider it reasonable to share infrastructure. "Infrastructure" being something that needs to exist anyway: roads are a good example, as is sewerage, public transportation systems and so on. I am content to balance out the cost across society - the times that I can contribute are balanced out by the times that I contribute less. I am content that these costs balance out for two reasons:
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:13AM
I can't help but point out (and I'm surprised nobody seems to have mentioned it already on this thread) that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. Without wanting to unduly labour this point (since we've already been through this in other discussions), it's worth recognising that as soon as you allow trucks on your road, the damage done by cars fades in significance.
Watch out what you're asking for. EVs tend to be a lot heavier (easily 50%) than ICE cars. Are you prepared to pay 5x more than your ICE neighbor for infrastructure because of your EV with all of its heavy batteries? You gotta compare apples to apples. Trucks are already taxed more, so the point is moot. Stop deflecting.
No, but I'd consider it reasonable to share infrastructure.
I take it then that you have no objection to that $200/year tax on EVs, as it's merely bringing them roughly in-line with existing road infrastructure-using vehicles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:39AM
> Are you prepared to pay 5x more than your ICE neighbor for infrastructure because of your EV with all of its heavy batteries?
Why do you assume hypocrisy on his part?
> Trucks are already taxed more, so the point is moot. Stop deflecting.
Yeah? Define "more." Because that sounds like deflection to me. There is no way they are taxed proportionally to the 4th power of axle weight.
(Score: 3, Touché) by lentilla on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:39AM
You know how I mentioned previously that attempting to calculate a "fair share" was a fool's errand?
No, but I'd consider it reasonable to share infrastructure.
I take it then that you have no objection to that $200/year tax on EVs
When I was talking about "sharing", I didn't mean "share a cake by paying for the proportion you eat". Like I tried to explain before: calculating the proportion will generate so many wildly dissenting opinions. What I am suggesting is that we consider infrastructure as something that benefits us all - rich and poor alike. In the case of road infrastructure, the rich benefit by selling products delivered via road and the poor benefit by being able to visit shops to buy products. We all benefit. Who benefits more? Less?
Are you prepared to pay 5x more than your ICE neighbor for infrastructure because of your EV with all of its heavy batteries?
Am I prepared to? Yes. Would I do so? That would honestly depend on price. Personally I am content to pay more to drive the car that I want. How much more is a very individual question. In my case, probably quite a bit more, but then again I rather like cars - I see them as a kind of mechanical symphony wrapped up in artistic form. Other people don't quite share my love. So... pragmatically speaking, we need to forget individual preferences because it isn't relevant to the bigger picture. The real question is: what kind of behaviours do we want to encourage?
Burning fossil fuels is not something we want to keep doing. Electric cars might not be the answer - how "green" they are depends on who you ask. I do know one thing; though; and that is that we want to explore all the options available, as much as possible, as fast as possible. Automobile technology has come a long way. The last thing we want to do at this very moment when we are experiencing an evolution of automobile engineering is discourage innovation through a regressive tax. The sooner we wean ourselves from burning fossil fuels to get to work on a daily basis, the better for all humanity. It's a good bet giving emergent technologies a "free pass".
To summarise my position, I put forward the following considerations: