High Texas electric car fee bill spells the end of EV road tax subsidies

[Redaktion]

While the average Texan pays US$71 in annual gas taxes, electric vehicle owners in the Lone Star state will have to shell out US$200 per year if a Texas House bill is ratified by Governor Abbott. This record annual EV levy may be a harbinger of things to come for electric cars that have been exempt from road taxes despite their heavier weight.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/High-Texas-electric-car-fee-bill-spells-the-end-of-EV-road-tax-subsidies.711248.0.html

[Neenyah]

While the average Texan pays US$71 in annual gas taxes...

Lol, here in my country average is around 50€ (+- 1€) PER WEEK. Time to move to Texas.

[LL]

In mine the taxes cost more than the gasoline.

[Neenyah]

In mine the taxes cost more than the gasoline.

Same 😅 Gotta love those leechers politicians and their creativity to find new ways to get money for themselves while doing literally nothing.

[vertigo]

It's about time. Funny how I saw no complaints over the years that EV and, to a lesser extent, hybrid drivers have been contributing to road wear, typically more than ICE drivers, while not contributing to their repair. It should be higher than the average ICE driver's road taxes, since EVs and hybrids weigh more and are often driven more, not to mention, again, they've been going years without contributing. Plus the fact their cars are also being paid in large part by taxes, so they're using tax money to avoid having to pay further taxes. Frankly, $200/yr is low, but it won't stop all the freeloaders from complaining.

As a side note, on a recent drive through several states, the red states consistently had both lower gas prices and better roads while the blue states consistently had higher gas prices and worse roads. Take of that what you will.

[A]

It's about time. Funny how I saw no complaints over the years that EV and, to a lesser extent, hybrid drivers have been contributing to road wear, typically more than ICE drivers, while not contributing to their repair. It should be higher than the average ICE driver's road taxes, since EVs and hybrids weigh more and are often driven more, not to mention, again, they've been going years without contributing. Plus the fact their cars are also being paid in large part by taxes, so they're using tax money to avoid having to pay further taxes. Frankly, $200/yr is low, but it won't stop all the freeloaders from complaining.

The complaint here isn't about EVs paying road taxes, even CA has road taxes for EVs. The complaint here is the road taxes are much higher than average. Which is unfair.

As for who does the most road damage, the most common EV is a Tesla, their weight is only about 10% higher than their ICE counterparts. That isn't enough to justify being forced to pay 3X more

Also, I will point out it isn't just weight that matters for impact on road, but weight per axle. EVs that tend to have even weight would actually do less harm than ICE cars which have uneven weight distribution

As for your statement of using taxes, you are confusing federal and state. The tax credit is federal, while Texas does have a limited tax credit(which the biggest ev manufacturer isn't eligible for as you need a dealership), it is expiring and unlikely to get renewed for 2024. So again, the state charging $200 a year which is almost 3X more makes 0 sense

PS I am all for taxing all cars based on their weight and how much damage they do to the road. But we will never see it happen cause over 90% of the damage to roads isn't cars but semi trucks

[vertigo]

The complaint here isn't about EVs paying road taxes, even CA has road taxes for EVs. The complaint here is the road taxes are much higher than average. Which is unfair.

As for who does the most road damage, the most common EV is a Tesla, their weight is only about 10% higher than their ICE counterparts. That isn't enough to justify being forced to pay 3X more

Also, I will point out it isn't just weight that matters for impact on road, but weight per axle. EVs that tend to have even weight would actually do less harm than ICE cars which have uneven weight distribution

As for your statement of using taxes, you are confusing federal and state. The tax credit is federal, while Texas does have a limited tax credit(which the biggest ev manufacturer isn't eligible for as you need a dealership), it is expiring and unlikely to get renewed for 2024. So again, the state charging $200 a year which is almost 3X more makes 0 sense

PS I am all for taxing all cars based on their weight and how much damage they do to the road. But we will never see it happen cause over 90% of the damage to roads isn't cars but semi trucks

Again, they haven't been paying road taxes for years. But now that they have to, having to pay a little more is unfair... This is especially ridiculous considering they're getting thousands off the cost of the car courtesy of the taxpayer. And no, I'm not confusing it. The point is, they are using tax money to buy a luxury item which, if they can afford it with the subsidy (a term that is more accurate than rebate or credit, which are undoubtedly used instead to avoid calling it what it is), they should be able to afford it without. What's unfair is that people with good credit, who have been responsible and done the right thing, now have to pay thousands more, often twice the amount of the EV subsidy (and 2-3x this tax) over the term of their mortgage in order to subsidize (there's that word again) those who haven't been as responsible. And while I don't like to generalize, the people that tend to drive EVs and are upset about this tax are generally the same ones that are responsible for and happy about that. So sorry if I don't feel bad they have to pay an extra ~$100/yr, as I'll be paying an extra $600/yr, give or take, when I buy a home next year. All while driving a 15-year-old car and paying for my own health insurance after not having any for years due to not being able to afford it (but subsidizing others'). Oh, and let's not forget the very high likelihood of gas prices going up in order to force more and more people into EVs, so while I'm already paying more per mile than these people complaining about this, it'll likely be even more. But I digress.

That is a good point about the weight per axle and the even weight distribution, though as I mentioned hybrids and likely EVs are typically driven more, so I'd wager that, at best, it evens out.

I do feel the tax is too high, but not so much that it's worth making a big deal over, and it should be "too high" for at least a bit to balance out the years of no taxes paid by them, and of course, considering the subsidies, as far as I'm concerned $500/yr wouldn't be too high, as they'd still be ahead until roughly 20 years of ownership (15 years before they'd finally pay the amount of the subsidy and break even on taxes, then about five more years to pay the equivalent in taxes as an ICE vehicle over those years, and yes, I'm aware they're different tax pools, but they're still taxpayer money). So yeah, complaining about $200, considering all the factors, is frankly childish IMO, and just reflects the attitudes and fiscal viewpoints of many of these people who want something for nothing.

I do agree trucks are a major source of road wear, and I wonder how the taxes will be handled for electric versions. Hopefully they don't take years to come up with a replacement tax for them like they did with EVs (and still haven't with hybrids AFAIK), otherwise our roads are going to be in an even worse state of disrepair than they already are. Of course, with trucks, those taxes will just be passed on to the consumer via an increased cost of goods, so it will just be another case of everyone else footing the bill.

[A]

Again, they haven't been paying road taxes for years. But now that they have to, having to pay a little more is unfair... This is especially ridiculous considering they're getting thousands off the cost of the car courtesy of the taxpayer. And no, I'm not confusing it. The point is, they are using tax money to buy a luxury item which, if they can afford it with the subsidy (a term that is more accurate than rebate or credit, which are undoubtedly used instead to avoid calling it what it is), they should be able to afford it without. What's unfair is that people with good credit, who have been responsible and done the right thing, now have to pay thousands more, often twice the amount of the EV subsidy (and 2-3x this tax) over the term of their mortgage in order to subsidize (there's that word again) those who haven't been as responsible. And while I don't like to generalize, the people that tend to drive EVs and are upset about this tax are generally the same ones that are responsible for and happy about that. So sorry if I don't feel bad they have to pay an extra ~$100/yr, as I'll be paying an extra $600/yr, give or take, when I buy a home next year. All while driving a 15-year-old car and paying for my own health insurance after not having any for years due to not being able to afford it (but subsidizing others'). Oh, and let's not forget the very high likelihood of gas prices going up in order to force more and more people into EVs, so while I'm already paying more per mile than these people complaining about this, it'll likely be even more. But I digress.

The problem with your logic is this, the so called people who have been driving EVs up to now was a small %. But now EV sales is growing exponentially. Saying those people of the past who made up less than 1% were avoiding being taxed so punish the 10%, 20%, 50%, 90% going forward? You do realize that as EVs take over the majority of sales, this just accepting everyone being taxed more going forward right?

The EV subsidy which again is a federal subsidy not a state subsidy will go away in 10 years, this tax will remain forever. On top of that I will note the federal subsidy isn't free either, because for every reduction in cost, the resale value of the car goes down by the same amount.

The harm that ICE cars do to people's health has far more cost than the EV tax credit.

As for cost of mortgage going up, how is any of this related to the discussion?

That is a good point about the weight per axle and the even weight distribution, though as I mentioned hybrids and likely EVs are typically driven more, so I'd wager that, at best, it evens out.

I do feel the tax is too high, but not so much that it's worth making a big deal over, and it should be "too high" for at least a bit to balance out the years of no taxes paid by them, and of course, considering the subsidies, as far as I'm concerned $500/yr wouldn't be too high, as they'd still be ahead until roughly 20 years of ownership (15 years before they'd finally pay the amount of the subsidy and break even on taxes, then about five more years to pay the equivalent in taxes as an ICE vehicle over those years, and yes, I'm aware they're different tax pools, but they're still taxpayer money). So yeah, complaining about $200, considering all the factors, is frankly childish IMO, and just reflects the attitudes and fiscal viewpoints of many of these people who want something for nothing.

Taxes aren't going away(we know this), and paying backwards makes no sense. Again, EV sales are growing exponentially, you are just mostly punishing new people.

Asking that road taxes be equivalent is nothing childish. This is just an attempt to discourage EV sales bribed by the fossil fuel industry.

I do agree trucks are a major source of road wear, and I wonder how the taxes will be handled for electric versions. Hopefully they don't take years to come up with a replacement tax for them like they did with EVs (and still haven't with hybrids AFAIK), otherwise our roads are going to be in an even worse state of disrepair than they already are. Of course, with trucks, those taxes will just be passed on to the consumer via an increased cost of goods, so it will just be another case of everyone else footing the bill.

Trucks already don't pay their fair share by a huge margin. On top of that even when they do pay taxes many travel between states and fill up wherever it is the cheapest.

That said, tracking semi truck mileage is easier than tracking consumer mileage. If you put a tracker on a semi-truck and tax it, it would be nothing new as most trucks already are tracked for inventory planning purposes. You can't do that with consumer cars cause people will start screaming government is monitoring them.

[Wrenchbender]

This is an attempt to throttle sales of electric vehicles period. Texas is an oil based economy and is threatened by the fact these vehicles do not use petroleum based fuels. If sales of these vehicles continue to increase as they are there will be a drop is petroleum based fuels consumption ie. decrease demand which will cause a glut of fuel and force lower prices of petroleum based fuels. This will decrease petroleum profits and also decrease the amounts taxed at the pumps; Texas largest source of revenue. This will also impact the need for refineries, drilling and other oil feild jobs. An entire oil industry workforce reduction will ensue; forcing those jobs to transition to other labor sectors which may require retaining of an entire segment of labor. This can cause economic pain for a state dependent on oil subsidies, taxation of fuel costs at the pump and money's collected from lobiest pushing law makers towards their agendas. If more of these vehicles hit the road the more loss of taxable fuels income the state will have and will be passed on in different ways to the states citizens.  EV tax now,  State income taxes and higher property taxes will happen.  This is the direction other states governance have taken. Those states have priced their citizens out and most are moving to states like Texas.  Now Texas is turning into what they just escaped from. The fact is these EVs don't require oil changes, spark plugs, air filters pcv valves or tune up parts, radiator hoses, waterpump, they don't have emissions devices, fan belts,  transmission filters or require fluid changes, catalytic converters, exhaust mufflers or tailpipes, they don't wear the brake linings as they have regenerative braking systems, and their is no engine to wear out or overheat and fail.
 This will greatly impact dealerships and independent repair facilities that depend on traditional vehicles to have regular maintenances performed and make repairs as these vehicles wear and age. Now we have another entire workforce impacted by these EVs as there isn't any to very little maintenance required to keep these things on the road. Don't say the batteries will keep the mechanics busy because they won't these vehicle batteries have warranties for 120k and 10 yrs and they are not failing.
 These vehicles are going to cause a lot of pain for those who unwilling or can not move quickly enough to adjust and adapt to what is eventually coming.  Texas is one of those states that truly believes if it ain't broke don't fix it! It's worked for the last 100 years don't change things now. So Texas will do whatever it takes to impede this movement. There are jobs, fuel ⛽️ taxes and oil subsidies at stake. Texas has too much invested in petroleum and oil is what has made this State Great.

[anan]

Isn't the Texas oil industry heavily subsidized? Like the most subsidized from all the states?
If so then ICE owners have been enjoying lower operating costs because of those subsidies. Since ICE cars make up the bulk of road going cars then the total amount of subsidies they receive will by much higher than EVs.