Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday April 04 2015, @06:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the people-are-getting-amped-up dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Sunday April 05 2015, @12:04AM

    by lentilla (1770) on Sunday April 05 2015, @12:04AM (#166529)

    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:

    1. that calculating my "fair share" is a fool's errand and would result in endless arguments, and;
    2. that I'd prefer to be generous by default and to share my largesse with my fellows. (I've already been the recipient of many things courtesy of past generations, so now it's my time to "pay it forward", so to speak.)
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by subs on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:13AM

    by subs (4485) on Sunday April 05 2015, @02:13AM (#166551)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:39AM (#166564)

      > 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

      by lentilla (1770) on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:39AM (#166592)

      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:

      1. "Infrastructure" are systems that benefit everyone where the costs can not be easily divided amongst the users because the individual benefits don't necessarily benefit each user in proportion to their individual use.
      2. That these infrastructure costs should be shared by those that can afford them to benefit everyone that needs them. Society is symbiotic. No roads mean no travelling to shops for poor people; and (but not in exclusion to); no roads mean the wealthy can't deliver products to shops for the poor to buy. (When I say "poor" and "wealthy", you might prefer to read "under/over contributing to infrastructure costs".)
      3. I'd prefer to be generous by default. I don't mind if you call it "trickle-down economics" or "better a beer shared with a mate than two for myself", that's still the way I prefer to live.
      4. We have got to stop burning fossil fuels so giving alternative technologies a leg-up is a smart long-term strategy. Conversely, causing people to stop supporting alternatives is penny-wise and pound-foolish.