Taxed for driving

[Max Rockatansky]

[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   The great irony is that all these coal burning power plants that are so wide spread are pretty much the closet big heavy polluter right up there with gas powered cars.  Taxing increases in both utilities and gas would probably dissuade excessive usage to an extent with some people. 

[Sykotyk]

The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.

That's how the tax is set up today.  And that's why our nation's roads are in such poor shape.

No, they're in such bad shape because voters would rather have crappy roads and low taxes than good roads and medium taxes.  The Federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and as a per gallon tax its value declines with inflation.

There's kind of a double-whammy with the gas tax right now. The gas tax has to go up in order to, effectively, stay the same, due to inflation (as you said). But now it has to go up even faster because cars are too efficient. As cars become more and more efficient, the gas tax has to go up faster and faster to compensate for the reduced refueling rate. Something that taxes people based on miles driven, instead of the energy source of their vehicle, is far more sustainable. People buy more fuel efficient vehicles when gas prices go up; this has nothing to do with gas taxes. People aren't trading in their Suburbans for Prii because the gas tax goes up 7 cents. They do it because they go the same distance at completely different prices, gas taxes notwithstanding.

FWIW: Before taxes, a 2015 Suburban costs ~$45 to fill up. A 2015 Prius costs ~$15.

But, the issue is tax collection. At the pump is easy. It's simple. It's inclusive of the price. It's practically 'out of sight, out of mind' and even then people complain about it.

Switching to mileage-based presents several logistical issues. First, how do you keep track? Odometer readings during annual inspections or registrations? Okay, great. Let's make people, who vastly are unable to save money, pay hundreds of dollars in one payment just to keep driving their cars legally. But, then you run into tampering with the odometer. Especially on older cars that people intend to 'drive to the junk yard' and have no intention of ever selling to upgrade. Those will be most willing to simply 'turn back' the gauge.

What about cars with faulty or 'Exceeds Mechanical Limitations' odometers? Suddenly we're going to require those vehicles to replace or repair their odometers? My sister had a Pontiac Grand Prix she bought used when she went to college. Less than a year later, the transmission went out (Reverse gear started slipping), so she brought it home and my dad and I took it to get the transmission replaced. The only one at the junk yard was from a different car model, but fit. The problem was the gears were a different ratio. Which meant switching the guage to KM instead of MI on the display was closer to accurate mileage and speed than the miles (i.e., if the km/h said you were doing 60km/h you were probably doing right around 60mph). But, if you went by gauges marked properly, my sister would've paid a lot less for a mileage tax going by the miles gauge.

And then, less than a year later after that, her display panel went (all electronic). We got it working, but the odometer/trip meter never worked again. She did get her speedometer, but that was it. She drove the car for two more years before she traded it in for her first 'new car'. All in all, that one vehicle highlights two of the problems with the mileage tax.

Because, to combat that, you would require a device in the car to track you. Which will probably be unconstitutional once it's brought before the Supreme Court. BECAUSE if a state instituted this, they would need to only charge you for the state you drive in. Outside drivers would drive for free on their roads, as they couldn't mandate out-of-state vehicles temporarily purchase/attach a device to their car to be billed by that state.

Which is the biggest problem, this would have to be an all-or-nothing switch. Oregon couldn't do it because suddenly California and Washington drivers would be driving on their roads for free. They could argue that 'well, some people will cross the state line to buy gas and then return home', but that is an outlier that can be corrected by appropriately pricing their fuel tax to cover their needs based on the gallons purchased annually.

And, as mentioned repetitively, it takes away some of the benefit of switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle. Sure, you still save the gas price, but the tax price is part of the savings. Adjusting the rate to account for the higher MPG, you, by design, start upping the price of driving a gas-guzzler. Slowly culling them from the herd, as people move to more and more fuel efficient vehicles to avoid the onerous price per mile expense of low MPG.

And as that happens, the tax will continue to adjust. Always accounting for it. Those at the leading edge of technology will see a benefit, while those at the backend suffer. And, SUVs are the bane of money conscious consumers. They're a status symbol. After high school, I worked a simple job for a few years, and one of my co-workers (who made about twice minimum wage at the time) had just bought a brand new Suburban. Within days she started complaining about the price of gas and how expensive it was. Not a peep from her before purchasing that vehicle about gas prices. I'd like to consider it an 'idiot' tax as much as a 'gas tax'.

[kalvado]

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

[vdeane]

[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

[Max Rockatansky]

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

But on the flip side that's pretty much how anyone feels when they are the group that is picked to get a tax dumped on them.  Say hypothetically one day 25% of the vehicles on the road become full electric they there has to be a way to compensate for the lost tax revenue from gas taxes.  A simple way would be to have metered cabling at home and at service stations that would recharge electric vehicles.  So it may not exactly affect the non-electric vehicle user but they'll have to pay the gas tax still...assuming they drive at all.  Bottom line is that the gas taxes need to go up across the board, this whole mileage tax is just lipstick on a pig masking the real problem.

And as far as utility alternatives they do exist depending on your location and in what is considered passe these days.  Nuclear power basically has lost all it's momentum due to the negative press it receives.  On a large scale nuclear is about the only big alternative that could regularly replace coal but it would take a huge change in mindset politically in the eyes of the public for that ever to become a thing again.  The problem that states like NY, PA and WV have is that they are traditionally in the coal belt.  But out west especially there are widespread options of hydroelectric, solar and even in some cases wind.  Granted it would take a lot more power stations for each of the three but they can for the most part be built, especially in desert states.

[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

This

[kalvado]

I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

One of big points of all-electric is ability to charge even from the standard outlet, if nothing else is available. Somewhat similar to bringing a gallon of gas in 2 cola bottles to someone who ran out of gas at 2 AM in the middle of nowhere.

But on the flip side that's pretty much how anyone feels when they are the group that is picked to get a tax dumped on them.  Say hypothetically one day 25% of the vehicles on the road become full electric they there has to be a way to compensate for the lost tax revenue from gas taxes.

Thing is, taxation should ideally be more or less fair. What "fair" means is a difficult question, but I definitely feel that I don't have to contribute specifically to road fund for a cold weather outside, when I need to fire up that room heater...

concept of "driver pays for road use" is more or less accepted, and probably "fair" enough, whatever that mean.

And I am not willing to talk about energy in general, as that would be way off topic.

[US 41]

I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

[AlexandriaVA]

What's the optimal amount of taxes then?

[Max Rockatansky]

I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

The end result of that is infrastructure that falls apart or basically the current state of affairs that the road networks are currently in today.  Believe me as someone who drives 30,000 plus miles a year (granted by choice instead of commuting) I would not to have to pay something like five cents on the mile.  Now the thing that I am willing to accept and in fact plan my monthly budget for is $4 dollars a gallon of gas.  Basically the money has to come from somewhere and if it isn't going to come from taxes it's going to come from private companies which leads to things like toll hikes or even toll roads. So basically it's pick your poison because the cost is going to come out of your pocket somewhere.  The primary problem I have with how these tax per mile proposals are set is that they aren't tabled by vehicle weight.  These proposals tend to be a blanket rate for everyone when these proposals come up which tells me there is something behind the scenes going on to not encourage people to drive or force mass transit on them.

Basically this isn't really any different than any other local legislative proposal that comes up on a ballot.  Nobody likes increased taxes but something they are in fact necessary and need to happen.  I often find myself voting "yes" on at least one or two a year but they usually have some sort of nominal sales tax or something of the like attached to them.  Now that isn't to say that the infrastructure issues across the country are universal through out.  I certainly wouldn't tell you a state like Nevada or Arizona needs the level of tax payer funding for repairs as opposed to state like Michigan does where the infrastructure has not been maintained properly.  I guess it just really depends on where you live, what is going to get through the local legislature and what isn't.

In fact Arizona and Nevada are a good example.  Some of the early proposals for I-11 had it as a toll road built by private contractors simply due to the fact the tax payer bases had such a strong opposition to the idea of an increased tax.  At the end of the day toll road or tax someone is going to have to pay the bills.  It basically comes down to which hand do you want to take that money out of for funding?

[kphoger]

SUVs are ... a status symbol.

I have a family of five and only one vehicle, and we regularly make long-distance trips that include driving off-pavement.  My SUV is not a status symbol; it is practical.

[kalvado]

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

Well, we get a lot of money funneled through the government. Most countries have about 1/3 of GDP going through the government coffers. Those spending include a lot of things, from military and space flight to unemployment and social security, from pens in social security office to major bridges. That "1/3" number slowly grows: in US for example it went from about 15% 100 years ago to about 40% today. It is the reality of life. (I wonder what would happen once government wants more than 100% of GDP.. well, that is off-topic.)
Now, you don't want to put everything into a single tax - learning to evade single tax is easier than dozen different ones.

Now, why specialized taxes IMHO make more sense: if I know what exactly I am getting for that tax, I feel that my money can be spent wisely - or I know who is at fault. Property tax buys you city/town services: e.g.  police and firefighter coverage. Do you want more police officers on patrol? You will pay more. You think crime is low? Suggest reducing your town force, and don't complain once your car end up with some removed parts.  Gas tax buys you roads. Sales tax... Often disappears in "general fund".
If you drive more or less often, you know that roads need money, roadwork season is around the corner. And guess who is paying? "government"?

Now our good governments love to raid such specialized funds. A few bucks from road funds can buy them some votes, but.. OK, I'll stop right here.

[Max Rockatansky]

SUVs are ... a status symbol.

I have a family of five and only one vehicle, and we regularly make long-distance trips that include driving off-pavement.  My SUV is not a status symbol; it is practical.

The primary problem with modern SUVs is that a large percentage of the families who own them "would" be better served by a smaller vehicle.  Back in the 80s I was part of a family of five as well and we had at least four or five 1,500 plus mile trips.  Back in that era you had plenty of fuel efficient options available like a wide variety of mini-vans and even the dreaded station wagon.  Most families aren't going to be doing some off-roading on the family trip, most won't ever in general but they persist in getting a vehicle that is ill suited for their needs and sometimes budget.  Granted the options with CUVs are becoming much better and more fuel efficient but to me they are more a Mini-Van/Station Wagon hybrid rather than a true SUV. 

But I would say that there tends to be a failure upon this adult generator to budget finances appropriately and blingafied SUV craze of the early 2000s was part of it.  I remember my Dad being crushed that he had to sell his 82 Corvette and 69 RS/SS to make way for a K-Car and Vista Cruiser but he did what he had to when my sister was on the way.

Granted this is coming from someone who has two cars in the garage just for him and the wife has her own.    I've told her repeatedly the Sonic and the Focus will make due just fine for the one kid we got and at least one more if it ever came down to that.

[kphoger]

When we traded our 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan for a 2007 Nissan Pathfinder a couple of months ago, we only took about a 2 to 3 MPG hit.  A minivan, in our case, wasn't a whole lot better in terms of fuel economy.

[Max Rockatansky]

When we traded our 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan for a 2007 Nissan Pathfinder a couple of months ago, we only took about a 2 to 3 MPG hit.  A minivan, in our case, wasn't a whole lot better in terms of fuel economy.

The biggest problem the whole vehicle class has had that it has fallen out of popularity and basically you have out dated/over weight platforms being used for the few that remain.  The Mazda 5 was about the most innovative Mini-Van (micro van?) that came around since the original Caravan but it's going away because of bad sales.

[kphoger]

I had considered buying a Mazda5 (especially because they sold them with a stickshift), but it is nowhere near off-pavement-worthy.  Seeing them drive down the highway, I'm glad I decided against it:  the back end bounces at the slightest pavement irregularity.  Fully loaded, driving over speed bumps and gravel potholes in México, it wouldn't last a week.

That last bit brings up another thing to consider paying tax based on odometer reading.  Forget out-of state drivers for a minute.  What about people who have cars registered in, say South Dakota, but actually live in Canada or México on a visa?  Then they'd be paying tax based on mileage that was nearly 100% driven in a foreign country.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had considered buying a Mazda5 (especially because they sold them with a stickshift), but it is nowhere near off-pavement-worthy.  Seeing them drive down the highway, I'm glad I decided against it:  the back end bounces at the slightest pavement irregularity.  Fully loaded, driving over speed bumps and gravel potholes in México, it wouldn't last a week.

That last bit brings up another thing to consider paying tax based on odometer reading.  Forget out-of state drivers for a minute.  What about people who have cars registered in, say South Dakota, but actually live in Canada or México on a visa?  Then they'd be paying tax based on mileage that was nearly 100% driven in a foreign country.

Yeah my wife has been talking about getting a new vehicle lately and one that I have my eye on is the Renegade Trailhawk.  It looks like it's plenty small, still averages something like 30 MPG and most importantly has some off-road ability.  Granted I have my own agenda since moving back west I have a gap in my vehicle line up for moderate off-roading.

It also begs the question what if you are a resident of even one of those states but the majority of your miles are out of said state?  When I had a territory over 5 western states I would estimate that 70% of the miles were not in my home state.  So basically it appears on the surface the way some of these laws are written that I would have been taxed for everything mileage wise regardless of where it was driven.

[vdeane]

I agree that it seems like the mileage tax is being used to discourage driving (note that the people proposing it are often the same people who support freeway removals, for example) , and I am certain that the possibility of GPS tracking is a factor in its support.

One of big points of all-electric is ability to charge even from the standard outlet, if nothing else is available. Somewhat similar to bringing a gallon of gas in 2 cola bottles to someone who ran out of gas at 2 AM in the middle of nowhere.

And I'm not taking that away.  All I propose is that the cord used to plug the car into the wall have a meter on it.  The user would get a card from their electric company that they would insert into the meter.  The meter would then transmit the amount of electricity supplied to the car to the electric company, who would then charge the appropriate tax on your next bill.  If you attempt to charge without the card inserted, the meter would block the current.  The car's charging port would be made such that only the government approved metered cables could be used to charge the car (perhaps including software in the car to disable it if a user attempted to use an unapproved electric connection).  Your wall outlet would be unaffected.

I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

You're not factoring in inflation, which erodes the buying power of fixed taxes (as opposed to percentage-based taxes) over time, and is chronically under-reported.

You're also not factoring in improving technology.  I'm sure the length of time to charge an electric car will go down over time (heck, my smartphone takes less time to charge than my dumb phones or iPods ever did), as will the range of the vehicles, and I'm sure the cost will go down (actually, it is already, with Tesla set to release an electric car priced within typical consumer range soon).

[kalvado]

All I propose is that the cord used to plug the car into the wall have a meter on it.  The user would get a card from their electric company that they would insert into the meter.  The meter would then transmit the amount of electricity supplied to the car to the electric company, who would then charge the appropriate tax on your next bill.  If you attempt to charge without the card inserted, the meter would block the current.  The car's charging port would be made such that only the government approved metered cables could be used to charge the car (perhaps including software in the car to disable it if a user attempted to use an unapproved electric connection).  Your wall outlet would be unaffected.

Now we have at least 4 points which can be hacked: card, cable, car computer, and data transmission. One of those links will be weaker than others... And what if I live in the area without cell coverage? What if I have no utility contract, living off-grid?  What if car get exported to the country other than where it was sold?
System complexity will grow pretty fast... I can see some ways to enforce things, but it wouldn't be simple..

[wanderer2575]

I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

So by the simple logic of your last paragraph, you don't ever need a raise in salary at your job.  Because if you can't get by with the money your employer is already paying you, that's your fault.  Right?

Calling every item on your list an "additional" tax is a bit disingenuous (and by the way, #1 and #6 together are the same thing).  There are a zillion and one different taxes partly in an attempt to spread the burden fairly (I'll pass on debating what is "fair") and partly because if if your entire tax liability was presented at once you'd go apoplectic.  What counts in the end is one's total tax burden.  You're correct that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates of any developed country.  It's also true that as a percentage of gross domestic product, U.S. taxes overall are among the lowest of any developed country.   It's all a matter of which statistics you want to go with and the total amount of taxes you pay.

And while I don't advocate blindly opening my wallet every time someone wants more funding, the "I already pay more than my fair share in taxes" mantra is beyond tired.  Really, have you actually added it all up?  Some studies suggest that on the basis of adding up the value of all government services one receives and comparing it to the amount of taxes one pays, the majority of Americans don't pay their own way and are on the mooch.

[Duke87]

Which is the biggest problem, this would have to be an all-or-nothing switch. Oregon couldn't do it because suddenly California and Washington drivers would be driving on their roads for free. They could argue that 'well, some people will cross the state line to buy gas and then return home', but that is an outlier that can be corrected by appropriately pricing their fuel tax to cover their needs based on the gallons purchased annually.

I don't know about the latest iterations but IIRC when this was first proposed the idea was that gas stations in Oregon would all have to be fitted with the ability to wirelessly read every car's GPS log. If you have a GPS log, the tax for the number of miles you've driven in Oregon since the last time you got gas in Oregon gets added to the price of your fuel transaction. If you're from out of state and don't have a GPS log, you get a per gallon gas tax added to your transaction instead.

They were also insistent that the logger would only keep track of miles traveled in Oregon and would not save its traced paths. But I wouldn't fault anyone for not trusting that that's true.

Even still, the system can be made "fair" and the privacy concerns would be more workable if not for our government being notorious for abusing such privileges. Another concern which can't be worked around? All those GPS logging devices cost money. The administrative burden of operating a VMT tax by such means would be substantial. That alone makes me question the wisdom of it.

[Sykotyk]

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

A quick lookup of power plant output. Just the coal-fired power plants in this country from April 2012 to March 2013, produced a total output of 1,517,203 gigawatt hours of electricity. Which, according to the source, was 37.4% of all electric generation in this country. Which means, combined, from all forms of production: wind, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear, the power plants in this country during that time produced a staggering 4,056,692,513,368 kWh of power.

If we followed your math (and, just so you're clear, 1gal = 16cups), that would be 4c/kWh, or a $162,267,700,534.72 tax, annually. $162 BILLION. Or, roughly 12 Big Digs a year.

The problem with your math, was that you were factoring ALL electric use to be taxes when really you would just account for the offload of car charging taking the place of the traditional gas purchases.

For instance, if the average car got 30mpg and the average driver traveled 1,000 miles per month (all non-commercial/non-business vehicles), that would be an average of 400 gallons purchased a year. Using your estimate at 60cpg tax in NYS, that would be $240 of expected tax revenue over the course of the year. If everyone magically switched from gas to electric tomorrow, the expected tax increase on electricity (kWh) would be whatever rate would equal a $20 monthly increase in your electric bill. Not doubling it. Unless you were decked out in solar panels or lived like a hermit.

The truth is, energy production at a power plant is exceedingly efficient compared to millions of little tiny power plants mounted under the hoods of cars.  What's easy? Carrying one 5 gallon bucket a hundred feet or making 80 trips with one cup? That's why the cost of charging your electric car is so unbelievably inexpensive when not out on the road. The electricity needed to propel your vehicle is cheap. It's you creating your own power from gasoline or diesel that is expensive. And burdensome.

But that doesn't alter your wear and tear on the road beneath your wheels. And at some point those expenses must be paid.

[kalvado]

A quick lookup of power plant output. Just the coal-fired power plants in this country from April 2012 to March 2013, produced a total output of 1,517,203 gigawatt hours of electricity. Which, according to the source, was 37.4% of all electric generation in this country. Which means, combined, from all forms of production: wind, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear, the power plants in this country during that time produced a staggering 4,056,692,513,368 kWh of power.

As I mentioned, this is way way off-topic..
Yet..
You conveniently omitted natural gas firing facilities, which have roughly same share as coal from the discussion...  Do you really want to continue discussion on the topic you don't know?

[US 41]

What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

[Max Rockatansky]

What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

It's interesting to take a look back at how things were pre-New Deal in America.  A lot of what went into what most people consider making America great came from some heavy duty top ended tycoons of the late 1800s and 1900s.  If you had money back then you could do anything and if you didn't....well you were for all intents and purposes you were almost 100% on your own to make it or break it.  Granted this was the era of abusive employers, predatory banks, rampant racism and sexism the likes which nobody born after at least...I'm saying this VERY conservatively...the 1980s has witnessed.  Basically you had so much abuse across the board that it led to things like the social services you see today.  Also what are your thoughts on Social Security which is the grand daddy of social welfare programs or California going nuts with all this $15 dollar per hour minimum wage stuff?

With that said, times change.....and basically you are starting to see the backlash.  Unions have lost a lot of their power due to fair work place laws and it becoming obvious that a lot of them were equally as corrupt as the companies who led to their creation.  It's very clear that there is vast abuse in the social welfare systems and it's something coming to a head.  Some states are even proposing cut backs or requiring mandatory drug tests for those applying for welfare.  The damn shame of it all is that there is a small minority that still needs these programs but they are basically invisible in comparison with the swath of cautionary abuse stories that have become so prevalent.  But with that in mind, the problems of the present won't ever be the same as they were in the past or the future.  It's impossible to predict 70 years down the line what impact a law passed today might have and that will never change.  With all that in mind there probably hasn't been an era in this country's history that's been to grow up in because it's about as close a level playing field as it ever has been.  I'm not saying things are perfect....far from....but holy crap they could be infinitely worse than watching Fox News and CNN to see the ultra left or right complain about the other side like it was the end of the world.

But with that said, yes some cuts are in order but they won't be the big draw we're all looking for in regards to infrastructure development but then again every dime counts.  I don't foresee a catch all solution to any funding problem...much less road development and repair, it's more of something that would have to be chipped away at.  Not to mention we're not even touching on things like energy reliance, pollution, public safety and education which all need a piece of the pie as well.  So many multi-pronged approach like a nominal tax on mileage driven in-state (certainly not $0.05 per mile), expanded tolls, increased gas, sales and income taxes are better than a single one?  Basically about the best you can do is be educated about who you elect and what proposals are hitting the legislature then vote accordingly.

I thought this article was kind of topical considering where the conversation tends to be swinging:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/15/if-sweden-and-germany-became-u-s-states-would-they-be-among-the-poorest-states/

Kind of interesting how short-sighted Americans can be when it comes to what the state of rest of the world might be by comparison.  Hell even Canada has their own issues despite what most Americans might believe.  Just imagine what mandatory snow tires would do to the pre-existing road networks of states like Michigan?...provinces like Quebec have to contend with that every year.

[Duke87]

If we followed your math (and, just so you're clear, 1gal = 16cups), that would be 4c/kWh, or a $162,267,700,534.72 tax, annually. $162 BILLION. Or, roughly 12 Big Digs a year.

The problem with your math, was that you were factoring ALL electric use to be taxes when really you would just account for the offload of car charging taking the place of the traditional gas purchases.

The other problem with the math here is that the assertion 1 kWh equals 1 cup of gasoline is... wrong. It's actually equal to slightly less than half a cup.

1 kWh = 3412 BTU. There are roughly 115,000 BTU of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline, or about 34 kWh worth. So if you added 2 cents per kWh in taxes for electricity used to charge your car (not all electricity), you'd have the equivalent of 68 cents per gallon of gas, already a slight hike.