-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Georgia is removing EV $5k tax break. Adding $200 a year fee instead(not april fools)
- Thread starter Corgi
- Start date
- Status
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
If people really give an actual shit about improving roads through usage taxes, why hasn't the gas tax been raised since 1993?
Complistic
Member
Only if you want me to never visit georgia.
djplaeskool
Member
Since most infrastructure is handled on the state level, it's been largely up to the states to charge and collect gas tax revenue for project funding. Yes, the federal gas tax has been just shy of 20 cents for 20 years, but the states' taxes have fluctuated greatly.
Here are all the changes going into effect, on top of a GA gas tax hike to 26c/29c diesel:
I think a tiered phase out of the EV credit would have been better to keep adoption up, as opposed to a full and immediate elimination.
This is very specious reasoning. By your measure, you could have a tax credit for buying luxury watches and getting rid of it would be regressive.
You are confusing the federal gas tax with the state gas tax.
TheAbsolution
Member
I've never understood why they haven't expanded it. They have all that freaking space.
They expanded it by like half a mile past exit 12b...I guess that might have done something I donno, still gets jammed up there.
djplaeskool
Member
Oh god, I'm glad my commute stops at Windward Parkway.
McFarland is a nightmare in the afternoons.
Yeah luckily I work off windward and live off 12 so I have like 5 different ways to get home when the magical days that the highway is clear doesn't happen.
chaostrophy
Member
The car as an invention isn't the problem, the design of cities to require them is. My quality of life improved so much when I moved to a city with good public transit so I don't need to own a car or drive very often anymore, but they can still be occasionally useful.
I guess the flat fee is how they recoup some of the costs from existing EV owners, they already got their cheap EV.
It's going to kill new EV sales in Georgia though.
They shouldn't have offered such a generous incentive in the first place.
It's going to kill new EV sales in Georgia though.
They shouldn't have offered such a generous incentive in the first place.
entremet
Member
The whole transportation situation in the US is pretty sad.
The gas powered automobile is too catered to.
We need way more mass transit as well and better urban planning.
It's a chicken and egg problem, though. Cities are designed around personal vehicles, which is very inefficient and wasteful.
The gas powered automobile is too catered to.
We need way more mass transit as well and better urban planning.
It's a chicken and egg problem, though. Cities are designed around personal vehicles, which is very inefficient and wasteful.
Syph Medwes
Member
Ok, the $200 thing is bullshit.
However.
Why are some of you acting so surprised? Why the hell wouldn't you switch back if you had a chance to save money? EVs are still seen as green goods and are therefore seen as analogous to luxury goods so obviously consumers were relying on these exemptions/subsidies to influence them to purchase. What incentive do they have otherwise? The utility they gain by knowing they're helping "save the environment" by driving a car with lower emissions clearly isn't worth the monetary difference. So either wait for the technology to catch up where the cost of the respective cars nears parity to induce a change or impose a tax (further?) on the normal cars.
We see the failed EV subsidies in many other markets, that doesn't necessarily mean you blame the damn system, it just reflects consumers not valuing the cars enough to make the purchase without the subsidy, or represents a temporary free rider problem inherent with the emissions problem and cost of making a difference.
However.
Why are some of you acting so surprised? Why the hell wouldn't you switch back if you had a chance to save money? EVs are still seen as green goods and are therefore seen as analogous to luxury goods so obviously consumers were relying on these exemptions/subsidies to influence them to purchase. What incentive do they have otherwise? The utility they gain by knowing they're helping "save the environment" by driving a car with lower emissions clearly isn't worth the monetary difference. So either wait for the technology to catch up where the cost of the respective cars nears parity to induce a change or impose a tax (further?) on the normal cars.
We see the failed EV subsidies in many other markets, that doesn't necessarily mean you blame the damn system, it just reflects consumers not valuing the cars enough to make the purchase without the subsidy, or represents a temporary free rider problem inherent with the emissions problem and cost of making a difference.
DrROBschiz
Member
Hmm
I suppose if the number lines up with the average other people already pay in gas tax then it makes sense
Still cheaper to drive the electric vehicle and you still get access to the Federal Credit on your taxes every year right?
You can't compare luxury watches with cars. Cars represent far more of an economic benefit and necessity than a watch ever could. You also won't find many poor or middle class jumping on the luxury watch train even if it was cheap enough to buy because of the incentive. The buyer pool for luxury watches would remain the same. Can't say the same for cars.
It's in the business of the government to drive adoption rates of EVs up, much like it is in its interest to drive up home ownership via mortgage interest deductions (a much closer parallel btw). When the government gets rid of incentives like this and makes them pay a flat fee on top of that, I don't know how you can't call that regressive, especially when lower tax bracket buyers with garages jumped on the fact that you can lease these cars for cheaper than even a used gas car.
if you really want a usage based system of funding roads it should be based on vehicle load, time on the road, and distance traveled, not gas taxes.
DrROBschiz
Member
Yeah its a dumb tax honestly. I mean you NEED to have infrastructure revenue come from somewhere but it should just be universal.
I dont see how the budget cant just be met by License and Registration fees applied to all drivers. I mean they dont get harsh winters there so roads last longer
Maybe they need to audit how they spend and budget the money the ALREADY have
Beerman462
Member
When I was living in Japan we had to pay a road tax every year. It was based of your vehicle size I believe. Lets do that here in the states. If you drive a leaf it's $200. If you drive a big ass duelie diesel it's $600. Take the taxes out of gas prices.
DrROBschiz
Member
I assume they must have ran some numbers on some metrics for this?
Is that 200 the average tax you would normally pay a year on a gas vehicle?
Maybe they are ditching the credit and trying to replace the lost revenue
If you had a tax break that allowed people to basically get luxury watches for free, yes it has the same effect as removing this tax break.
The mortgage interest deduction has a regressive effect because it is a tax break given to rich people owning homes that poor people that rent do not receive. Removing the break will have an inordinate effect on those in higher income brackets, not the lower income brackets who mostly do not benefit from it.
Poor people owning garages that buy EVs are a very small percentage of the population that this affects. Every tax (or removal of a tax break) has some direct or indirect effect on some portion of the people in lower income brackets, but it does not automatically make it regressive. If you raise the capital gains tax rate you will also effect poor retail workers who receive stock options or some poor people that buy a couple of shares to invest, or poor people that will eventually sell their houses and pay capital gains tax, but that does not mean that it would be regressive just because some poor people are affected.
I would hope so.
TemplaerDude
Member
What absolutely ass backwards logic.
different 'categories'. hybrids also haven't had a tax break in years. And unless we are talking really specific hybrid cars like the prius, most hybrid trims aren' THAT much more fuel efficient than the pure gas counterpart. With falling gas prices, it would take at least a decade or so of 'savings' to break even on paying the extra for a hybrid.
AnotherNils
Member
Guys, I'm sure they thought long and hard about ending corporate tax breaks before killing this tax break. *snort*
Anyway, on the bright side, its nice to see one red legislature acknowledge that taxes can be raised, rather than just cutting funding to schools.
Anyway, on the bright side, its nice to see one red legislature acknowledge that taxes can be raised, rather than just cutting funding to schools.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Way to promote pollution.
He might be a little hyperbolic but there's truth to that. The car in itself is not terrible but when you require everybody to use a car and that's your main mode of transportation, yeah it's destructive. Depending on how fast climate change happens, you can attribute a lot of that to increased car usage. It's not just burning of gasoline that's the problem, it's allowed people to build more spread out - requiring more building material, especially asphalt which all contribute to higher carbon emissions.
To some, especially the poor, requiring cars for transport is a decrease in quality of life. It forces people to spend income on an inefficient means of transport when they could otherwise use it for better things.
This makes sense. EVs still use the roads, and those roads and infrastructure still need maintenance.
If not this, then GA would HAVE to decouple infrastructure income from gas and raise everyone taxes.
I can see how this compromise came to be.
I still think the credit should have stuck around for a bit longer (perhaps at a lower rate).
If not this, then GA would HAVE to decouple infrastructure income from gas and raise everyone taxes.
I can see how this compromise came to be.
I still think the credit should have stuck around for a bit longer (perhaps at a lower rate).
But they're already doing that here - they're just only decoupling it for EVs.
So no, it doesn't make sense, since these fees effectively penalize EV owners regardless of how much they use.
Meh, taking an average is probably the best way to do this. How would usage be measured? They gonna monitor everywhere my vehicle goes on only Georgia roads?
Edit: Actually, this is nowhere an average they would get from gas car owners. You'd have to buy around $2700 worth of gas for this to equal out. They are taking EV owners over the coals.
I agree that this makes sense, although I think it's implemented dully.
Liberal people are not facile in their approach to taxes; it isn't simply "more taxes = good!" Taxes are, among other things, a way to shape society. Taxing poor people a lot and rich people less shapes society one way, taxing poor people less and rich people more shapes it another. Taxing soda shapes society. Taxing gas does, too. All of these taxes (or lack thereof) will make our collective society bend in different directions over time.
The issue with this tax, then, is that this considerably diminishes the benefit to getting an electric car. A liberal would not argue that taxes are automatically good, but would argue that a prime role of government is to influence people to make socially optimal choices. Tax incentives for electronic vehicles accomplish that. Tax penalties actually encourage people to continue choosing gas powered cars, which are socially sub-optimal.
Again, it doesn't mean I think the reasoning is poor, but it's definitely something that requires a nuanced approach. We don't want free riders, but we also don't want to penalize people for making socially optimal choices.
EXACTLY
Vicetrailia
Member
This is a hard decision to make, but if it's really going towards road infrastructure then at least Georgia is getting that. Now's a good time to apply for city positions as a Crew Member for the Water Department fixing pot holes and stuff. Very unfortunate that they choose to disincentive EV adoption though.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I make my living producing materials for large infrastructure projects, the gas tax keeps me working. $200 seems fair to me. I also think the Federal gas tax should be raised
I think it's the demand for infrastructure which keeps you working...
I feel like keeping the incentive and adding the $200 year fee would have been a better option.
Captain Tuttle
Member
Sure, my point is that it needs to be paid for. Our roads and bridges are falling apart and no one wants to pay for it.
I've heard talk of raising the Federal gas tax now that prices are low, even some Republican leaders are considering it.
The problem is that no one wants to pay for it and the funding mechanisms don't make sense.
Technology improves, and millenials are more urbanized than gen Xers and baby boomers. The result is that you have people driving less overall, and using less gas per mile. But the roads still need to be maintained and also expanded on to accommodate a growing population - the funding mechanisms aren't set up properly for them, and there is no political will to actually maintain infrastructure until something bad happens - we'd rather spend on pet projects for the military overseas and keep government "small" (not meaning lean, but rather in the sense of being completely laissez-faire, unfortunately).
Fining people for owning EVs is the worst way they could address this.
Yea, that's a piss poor argument
Captain Tuttle
Member
Those are really great points. What do you suggest as an alternative (honest question, no snark involved)?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked