Current Events > EV owners in this State will now have to pay $200 tax/year. Guess which state.

(+) Yeah! (+)

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Nuclear embracement is still far behind where it needs to be so this idea of green EVs is a pipe dream. This comment proves it, as you mention renewables and not nuclear. Reducing car usgae in general is going do far more good than going through a middleman for your pollution

Nuclear isn't gonna happen. At this rate we are gonna get fusion adoption before nuclear.

At this rate, the world will end before nuclear adoption <_<

Tyranthraxus posted...

Nuclear isn't gonna happen. At this rate we are gonna get fusion adoption before nuclear.

wackyteen posted...

At this rate, the world will end before nuclear adoption <_<

Unfortunately these both seem to be the case. People continuing to lie about nuclear and renewables isn't helping.

As for fusion, the world will be burning before its viable. Energy needs a solution to fossil fuels (or rather, the solution needs to be implemented) before it can evolve with fusion

wackyteen posted...

At this rate, the world will end before nuclear adoption <_<

Hey if we can get Nasa funded and doing space tech again, nuclear tech is a very real possibility for major advancement.

But if SpaceX does it everyone loses :(

I'm still curious how realistic the engine used for the spacecraft in The Martian is. It makes sense to me, but I know next to nothing about the reality of it.

Being able to have nuclear power on a large scale would be nice but there's still the problem of what to do with the waste.

thronedfire2 posted...

Being able to have nuclear power on a large scale would be nice but there's still the problem of what to do with the waste.

What we do with everything, into the ocean /s

What if you live in an area of Texas where they dont maintain roads I.e. potholes and shit everywhere that they never fix?

thronedfire2 posted...

Being able to have nuclear power on a large scale would be nice but there's still the problem of what to do with the waste.

There is no problem, that's a classic fossil fuel propaganda point. You can literally just bury it. Nuclear plants have been doing so safely for ages and there's even facilities dedicated to it. And hat's before even getting into the potential for just reusing it

Peter Zeihan has a great video breaking down the problems with EVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf85EuQKWeQ

Kloe_Rinz posted...

What if you live in an area of Texas where they dont maintain roads I.e. potholes and shit everywhere that they never fix?

According to them you still need to pay even when the state isn't holding up their part of the bargain.

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Peter Zeihan

lol isn't he a libertarian?

Why would we take a libertarian seriously?

They've been talking about doing this in my purple state as well. Lawmakers are salty about people not paying our large gas tax.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

As for fusion, the world will be burning before its viable. Energy needs a solution to fossil fuels (or rather, the solution needs to be implemented) before it can evolve with fusion

I feel like we are sooooooooo close to Fusion. We can do this!

But I thought Texans hated unnecessary taxes

I guessed Wyoming.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Nuclear embracement is still far behind where it needs to be so this idea of green EVs is a pipe dream. This comment proves it, as you mention renewables and not nuclear. Reducing car usgae in general is going do far more good than going through a middleman for your pollution

I mean, in my head I include nuclear as part of renewable energy in my comment. I'm not anti nuclear in anyway.

But yes, we should also embrace reducing car usage as much as we can as well

I guessed Florida before I realized DeSantis really likes Musk.

Theres a lot of reasons to hate the Texas leadership. This isnt one of them.

The roads are maintained through gas taxes. If you arent paying taxes on gas because your car doesnt use it, then you arent contributing to the upkeep of the roads you benefit from. That money needs to come from somewhere.

I dont know the specifics of the new tax, so maybe there is some underhanded shit in their or whatever, but at face value, this is the fairest of nexts.

buddhamonster posted...

Theres a lot of reasons to hate the Texas leadership. This isnt one of them.

The roads are maintained through gas taxes. If you arent paying taxes on gas because your car doesnt use it, then you arent contributing to the upkeep of the roads you benefit from. That money needs to come from somewhere.

I dont know the specifics of the new tax, so maybe there is some underhanded shit in their or whatever, but at face value, this is the fairest of nexts.

What about where the road isnt maintained though

okay, now increase the tax/registration fee on gas guzzlers for carbon/pollution.

.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

What about where the road isnt maintained though

The shitty people in charge being incapable of providing adequete services to the people they're supposed to serve is not an argument against the collection of taxes, it's argument against fascist fuckwits who don't care about the people who live in their stae.

buddhamonster posted...

The shitty people in charge being incapable of providing adequete services to the people they're supposed to serve is not an argument against the collection of taxes, it's argument against fascist fuckwits who don't care about the people who live in their stae.

No when someone is paying taxes and drowning financially because they lack support and their taxes are getting wasted, it's ABSOLUTELY an argument against paying taxes.

If "paying for roads" was truly the goal, they could just levy a smaller tax on all non-commercial vehicles. Then people still are incentivized to get EVs to save on gas while still contributing to the road funds.
This is a blatant attack on EV ownership b/c the oil donor beholden Republicans don't like them.

streamofthesky posted...

If "paying for roads" was truly the goal, they could just levy a smaller tax on all non-commercial vehicles. Then people still are incentivized to get EVs to save on gas while still contributing to the road funds.
This is a blatant attack on EV ownership b/c the oil donor beholden Republicans don't like them.

So why does California enforce the same kind of tax?

voldothegr8 posted...

So why does California enforce the same kind of tax?

They didnt think it through

The problem EVs have are the same issues that gas powered cars have, minus the emissions. Sure they're nice but they're not going to solve the much greater issue we face with too many vehicles on the road and state governments expanding highways indefinitely. We need to push for more transit solutions that will take more self owned cars off of roads and not just replace them with electric powered ones.

voldothegr8 posted...

So why does California enforce the same kind of tax?

California
Sensible policies

> Pick One

streamofthesky posted...

If "paying for roads" was truly the goal, they could just levy a smaller tax on all non-commercial vehicles. Then people still are incentivized to get EVs to save on gas while still contributing to the road funds.
This is a blatant attack on EV ownership b/c the oil donor beholden Republicans don't like them.

From a cursory internet search, 33 states also have additional fees on electric vehicles, including states like Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, and Illinois.

streamofthesky posted...

California
Sensible policies

> Pick One

Why does Colorado enforce the same tax?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

As a practical matter, governments should be (along with a whole bunch of other things) incentivizing and encouraging people to move away from fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Policy that could have the opposite effect is short-sighted.

Antifar posted...

As a practical matter, governments should be (along with a whole bunch of other things) incentivizing and encouraging people to move away from fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Policy that could have the opposite effect is short-sighted.

EV tax credits were and still are a thing though. They're certainly subsidizing and incentivizing EV purchases over ICE ones.

Antifar posted...

As a practical matter, governments should be (along with a whole bunch of other things) incentivizing and encouraging people to move away from fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Policy that could have the opposite effect is short-sighted.

Policy that results in long term deficits becasue you can't afford to do basic road upkeep anymore is also not great policy.

In fact, I'd say the real short sighted policy here would be getting people to buy as many EV's as possible without accounting for the loss of tax revenue... hence why more then half the country has levied new taxes meant to offset that very thing from happening.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

But I thought Texans hated unnecessary taxes

They dont mind when theyre targeted at things they hate.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

EVs are oil propaganda so your latter claim is a bit bogus.

LMAO. This is so funny. Ah yes obviously the oil industry wants the widespread adoption of technology that will make it so easier to end our dependency on oil./s

streamofthesky posted...

If "paying for roads" was truly the goal, they could just levy a smaller tax on all non-commercial vehicles.

Why would it only apply to non-commercial vehicles when commercial vehicles have way more of an impact on road conditions?

Electric vehicles are essentially a tax break for the rich. Even with incentives there are few Americans in this economy who can afford to pay for a new car let alone a new electric vehicle. Just a way for the rich to once again not pay their fair share and put the burden of paying it on the poor who are already struggling. Also electric vehicles owners should be paying a lot more for insurance those things are bombs on wheels and they burn forever.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Ah yes I forgot how good EVs are for air quality. Thank god, instead of a car releasing emissions, a fossil fuel power plant releases emissions to power the car.

We know it isnt truly clean unless youre getting it other sources, but Ive read that its still more efficient than gasoline at using the fossil source. Meaning less consumed to achieve the same mileage.

Damn, didn't realize so many states had the bad policy of targeting only EVs w/ taxes.
Need to check if my state does. EV was already a tough sell for me since I drive very little so the higher up-front cost would probably never be repaid in the lower "fuel" costs. But yeah, my sub-5000 miles per year in a sedan is really tearing up those roads, better pay up that flat fee that's the same as the guy in the EV SUV or truck driving 20,000 miles...

JE19426 posted...

Why would it only apply to non-commercial vehicles when commercial vehicles have way more of an impact on road conditions?

Mostly because if you levy it on commercial vehicles, companies will just pass the cost on to the rest of us w/ a 500% markup, just like they did with pandemic "inflation".

I think raising gas taxes would be more sensible, at least that'd push commercial vehicles towards adopting EV options where available.
But in general I'm wary of imposing higher transit costs on business, based on past experiences and how eager they are to have an excuse to write a blank check for what they claim higher prices is costing them.... I still remember from GWB's presidency when gas prices first surged over $4/gallon, I worked in a convenience store and all the distributors started tacking on "fuel surcharges" to deliveries.

streamofthesky posted...

I think raising gas taxes would be more sensible, at least that'd push commercial vehicles towards adopting EV options where available.

You're not solving any problem here, you're just kicking the can down the road. Unless you also disincentive the use of the roads, then you still need a means of paying for them. The tax is not a punishment for buying a particular car, it's a cost of doing business to ensure our infrastrucure funtions well enough for you to use the car in the first place.

Everyone benefits from infrastructure. Everyone uses it. Everyone heavily relies on it for their day to day lives. So it stands to reason that the fairest solution is for everyone to chip in for its upkeep.

buddhamonster posted...

You're not solving any problem here, you're just kicking the can down the road. Unless you also disincentive the use of the roads, then you still need a means of paying for them. The tax is not a punishment for buying a particular car, it's a cost of doing business to ensure our infrastrucure funtions well enough for you to use the car in the first place.

Everyone benefits from infrastructure. Everyone uses it. Everyone heavily relies on it for their day to day lives. So it stands to reason that the fairest solution is for everyone to chip in for its upkeep.

So charge the tax on EVERY car. Then at least there's no incentive being added to hold onto the ICE car vs. getting an EV. Why is that controversial?

If I had the money I would buy one in Texas and then just drive back home.

JE19426 posted...

LMAO. This is so funny. Ah yes obviously the oil industry wants the widespread adoption of technology that will make it so easier to end our dependency on oil./s

The oil industry wants to prop up red herring solutions that don't address the real solutions. If you think you're a good little boy who's saving the environment by driving an EV, that means you won't be asking for the grid to be taken off fossil fuels, which is exactly what fossil fuel companies want. Its the same case with recycling. Its the same case with "carbon footprint".

EVs don't do jack shit for our dependancy on oil, they just create a middleman. The end result is the same.

project_night posted...

okay, now increase the tax/registration fee on gas guzzlers for carbon/pollution.

.

Sure let's tax even more to the poor and the lower middle class who can't afford an EV at all.

streamofthesky posted...

So charge the tax on EVERY car. Then at least there's no incentive being added to hold onto the ICE car vs. getting an EV. Why is that controversial?

But we're already charging taxes on every car not an EV. That's the whole point of the gas tax.

The EV's are directly benefiting from all the infrastructure payments, without paying into the system themselves. Why is it so controversial to ask them to now pay a small amount to offset that? They're still a net positive for the environment. They're still cheaper in the long run, even with the tax. They're just being asked to pay their fair share of the bill. Why is that so controversial?

IceCreamOnStero posted...

EVs don't do jack shit for our dependancy on oil, they just create a middleman.

Lol. Sure if the middleman can get their goods from anywhere. Which you know is a dumb idea for a business.

JE19426 posted...

Lol. Sure if the middleman can get their goods from anywhere. Which you know is a dumb idea for a business.

Try making a coherent pount next time because this is a bunch of gibberish

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

Tax revenue wise...it makes sense? Of course theyre also doing it to scare off people from buying EVs as well.

Only a Republican would not buy an EV just to avoid paying a $200 a year tax. Penny wise, pound foolish.

I live in WA. I literally paid $575 for my tabs this week. $225 for having an EV and some bullshit transportation excise tax was $250.

I rather just drive with expired tabs and pay the fine if caught.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Try making a coherent pount next time because this is a bunch of gibberish

It's way more coherent then your using less oil doesn't make us less depend on oil point.