Republicans In Congress Want a Flat $200 Annual EV Tax (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0177228115
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/04/30/2227225/republicans-in-congress-want-a-flat-200-annual-ev-tax
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/republicans-want-to-tax-ev-drivers-200-year-in-new-transport-bill/
> The Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is [2]proposing a new annual federal vehicle registration fee of $200 for full EVs , $100 for hybrid EVs, and $20 for combustion vehicles. The tax would be tied to inflation, would be collected by the states, and would expire in 2035. Critics of the proposal note that it could result in low mileage EVs paying a far higher tax rate than heavy ICE trucks and SUVs.
Ars Technica notes that the bill "exempts commercial vehicles, which should see a rush from tax avoiders to register their vehicles under their businesses [...]." Farm vehicles will also be exempt from the tax.
"The Eno Center for Transportation calculates that this new tax will contribute an extra $110 billion to the highway Trust Fund by 2035 but that cuts to other taxes and more spending mean that the fund will still be $222 billion short of its commitments -- assuming that this added fee doesn't further dampen EV adoption in the U.S., that is."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~LDA6502
[2] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/republicans-want-to-tax-ev-drivers-200-year-in-new-transport-bill/
Re: (Score:3)
ICE vehicles pay for road taxes at the pump (gas taxes). EV owners aren't paying for this, but they get to drive on federal highways. Doesn't seem that outrageous to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Taxes are the dues we pay to live in civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always choose to go live in some other successful society where no one has any requirement to pay for the common good.
Admittedly I'm unaware of any such, and they may not exist, because the game-theory of such a society causes it to collapse rather quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit though, tax revenues are fungible. EV owners pay taxes, too, and the difference is negligible.
The gasoline tax is levied because the people tolerate it and "road maintenance" is just the story politicians tell.
Besides, reduction in gasoline tax is something we would actually want. There would be no better outcome than for everyone to stop paying gasoline taxes.
In the long run, everyone converting to electric would be something to be celebrated and lost gas tax revenue would not even need t
Re: (Score:2)
So the magical fairy fixes the roads and builds new ones? How about something simple. Calculate the road tax based on the weight of the vehicle times the miles driven per year and send a bill. And don't exclude commercial vehicles. The proposal as it stands is just to rip off the greens and put it in the pockets of the corps.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest two hurdles to that are
1) states can't tax for miles outside of their state, so it requires GPS monitoring
2) people like big cars and the damage to the road is the 4th power of the axle weight. Charging based on road damage would make shipping expensive and people would wine.
Re: GOP (Score:2)
> In the long run, everyone converting to electric would be something to be celebrated and lost gas tax revenue would not even need to be replaced.
Because driving all those much heavier EVs on public roads wouldn't be an issue, the roads wouldn't need to be repaired? Or are you pretending that everyone would be happy to fund road maintenance and construction thru property, income, and sales tax revenue?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but a better way to do this is RUCs, Road User Charges, where you pay per mile with rates related to the weight per axle i.e. you pay based on how much wear you put on roads. RUCs are then charged equally on all vehicles, BEVs, hybrids and ICEVs. Of course the related taxes should then be removed from fuel as ICEV owners should not be paying twice for the same thing. I note that HFCVs where left off the list, which is fair, since they are mythical vehicles, I have never seen one IRL.
While this i
Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the tariffs, just another regressive tax proposal brought to you by republicans. And it favors the fossil fuel industry over alternative energy to boot. Pure republicanism. Just tax the wealthiest’s income at 50%, remove the income cap rate on the SS taxes so all of the wealthy’s income is subject to the tax like the rest of us, full fund the IRS to go after tax cheats, and leave the middle class and working poor alone you greedy self serving SOBs. That all by itself would solve most of the tax revenue issues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GOP are a bunch of criminals and cowards.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the USA, vehicle taxes are done at the State level. This new proposal would be like the EU adding a vehicle tax on top of your country's vehicle tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Just tax the wealthiest’s income at 50%
That's far too low. Tax brackets should function to effectively prevent anyone from obtaining the type of wealth that the wealthiest Americans enjoy. The highest tax bracket should be a 99% tax.
The reason most people agree with Republicans that this is unfair is because they don't actually understand how tax brackets work. It doesn't mean that you get taxed 99% on all of your income. Each bracket represents a certain portion of your income (if you're lucky enough to have income that exceeds the lowest brack
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best would be to just take the top 1%, seize their property and send them to Siberia. Oh, this is the US, well, I'm sure there are some empty places in the US where you could put some unwanted people.
Do that every few years and you will have paradise.
> When CEOs can't just give themselves and all the other executives absurd salaries and bonuses, all of a sudden paying their employees decent salaries with decent benefits makes sense. Investing in R&D makes sense. Long term thinking makes sense.
Not really, the stock holders will still want their returns and the stock holders will be moving to some other country that would not have this law.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to send people to Siberia (Trump would have to beg Putin for access).
Take Musk, for example, whose current wealth is ~330B. If you confiscated 99.9999% of it in a one time tax, he would be left with ~330k in wealth, which is enough to live on comfortably if he also gets a job like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's no need to send people to Siberia (Trump would have to beg Putin for access).
I am sure there are some empty places in the US that would be suitable for this purpose.
> Take Musk, for example, whose current wealth is ~330B. If you confiscated 99.9999% of it in a one time tax, he would be left with ~330k in wealth, which is enough to live on comfortably if he also gets a job like the rest of us.
Or he would just leave before the law went into effect. I know I would. Why the hell would I stay in a country that threatened to take most my money, then evict me from my house (houses usually cost more than 330k) for the crime of having too much money legally?
So, yeah, I would not approve of that, even if the proposal would be changed so there was no risk to me and it only applied to the real bourgeoisie. My country wa
Re: Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:2)
> That's far too low. Tax brackets should function to effectively prevent anyone from obtaining the type of wealth that the wealthiest Americans enjoy. The highest tax bracket should be a 99% tax.
It's been tried, didn't work.
Britain had a top tax rate of 95% at the height of the Beatles popularity - they wrote a song about it and moved their business location outside the UK.
We had a similar high tax rate before the Kennedy administration, then Kennedy cut the top tax RATE in half (IIRC) and tax REVENUE soared!
Ronald Reagan told the story about how he got around the aggressive income tax rates when he was in Hollywood as an actor. Once his income approached the highest tax level, he simply stopped wo
Re: (Score:2)
So much for the party of small government, no new taxes, and Retire All Government Employees. They just want more power and more money.
Re:Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:2)
Not that the above former objectives were ever desirable except in the minds of billionaires and their confused followers.
Re: Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:2)
Always cracks me up - Republicans cut tens of thousands of gov't workers and get no credit for cutting the size of gov't, they they propose a small tax, and all of a sudden the Republicans are trying to grow the size of government!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the details about this tax, but a vehicle tax is reasonable. Roads need to be paid for, and a gas tax it's the way to do it as more and more vehicles become electric.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking EV owners to pay costs related to roading is fair, but this proposal is not. The charges should be based on mileage and axle weight and be the same for all vehicles. Where I live it is almost that way, BEVs pay road user charges at under the same scheme used for diesel vehicles i.e. based on mileage.
Five dimensional chess (Score:3)
> a rush from tax avoiders to register their vehicles under their businesses
The word they were looking for is "evaders", not "avoiders". Personal use of a "company" vehicle has been a red flag that gets IRS audit attention for more than 50 years, and it [1]got stepped up [automotive-fleet.com] more recently. Anybody trying that "one weird trick" better have really good mileage and expense logs to back up their tax claims.
[1] https://www.automotive-fleet.com/159123/irs-to-focus-on-auditing-fleets-for-personal-use-reporting-compliance
Re: (Score:2)
That article is 12 years old. Today, the IRS is a shell of itself since they cut everything Biden did to expand it. Sure, if you get audited you might get busted, but the chance of getting busted is incredibly slim at this point.
Re: Five dimensional chess (Score:2)
Uh, the IRS performs plenty of audits, it's not really a problem.
[1]https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/I... [fas.org]
[1] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12521.pdf
How much the Republicans have cut the IRS (Score:5, Interesting)
You can do basically anything right now. I have some of the worst luck of any human being alive so I don't think I would chance it but I know people who are just doing whatever and they've been getting away with it for years with the cuts before Elon musk and the dog got to work.
Firing all those workers and refusing to implement the laws they are legally required to have saved about $150 billion. But the cuts to the IRS is going to cost about 1 trillion. Not billion, trillion with a t.
Of course that's the whole point but still.
I wouldn't be surprised though if in a year or two the IRS doesn't get some funding to go after low-level tax dodgers. It won't bring in very much money but it makes good television to have the IRS going around shaking down small time taxpayers instead of the big billionaires. It's a good way to make everybody fear paying taxes instead of looking at it as a positive good where you're paying for civilization.
Re: How much the Republicans have cut the IRS (Score:2)
The IRS audits low-income tax filers because that's where the money is. Middle income filers generally just pay the right amount, and high-income filers hire accountants to give them every legal advantage and to ensure they can pass an (expected) audit.
Trump was routinely audited before he ran for office - funny thing is, he never had a problem - it just took a long time to do each audit. (If he was caught cheating on his taxes, we would have heard about it in 2016, but we didn't)
No that is not true (Score:2)
I mean you have Google you can literally look it up in 2 seconds flat. Maybe 2 minutes if you've never bothered to learn how Google works. High income specially ultra high income taxpayers are where all the money is at when it comes to audits.
The IRS audits poor people because the Democrats are reckless and incompetent and I say that as a member of the Democratic party. So years ago we got out maneuvered by the Republicans and they put a rider into one of the bills that had the past to keep the countrie
so the federal trumps the state and I just need to (Score:2)
so the federal trumps the state and I just need to pay the fed. Ok I will take the $20/year only
Re: so the federal trumps the state and I just nee (Score:2)
Do your federal income taxes trump your state and local income taxes so you don't have to pay them?
No.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you repay the oil subsidies that you enjoy. And fire subsidies, LOL. You can pay those too, gasoline cars also catch fire
Re: (Score:2)
ICE vehicles get tax breaks for "road maintenance"—their smoke helpfully tars the roads. EVs? Just freeloaders rubbing the asphalt raw.
So what! (Score:1, Troll)
Every time someone operating an ICE vehicle refills at a gas station, they pay a federal/state tax on the fuel Every time someone operating an EV recharges their batteries at home, other than the electricity, they DO NOT pay a fee. Just evens up the playing field!
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the principle of this, the rate is clearly excessive. The current Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, so the rate that they are proposing is the equivalent of 1,087 gallons per year. The average new cars efficiency in the USA is about 28.5 mpg, so this is a flat tax that taxes people as if they drive nearly 29,000 miles per year. In fact the average American driver goes just short of 13,500 miles per year. Furthermore EVs generally are driven fewer miles per year (since many familie
Re: So what! (Score:2)
The lawmakers had three choices:
A) A flat tax,
B) A mileage/usage-based tax, or
C) Ignore the issue.
C is not an option, and B is a bear to calculate, so they went with option A, and just picked $200 for EV, $100 for Hybrid, and $20 for ICE.
The vast majority of vehicle owners will pay $20/car per year.
Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to be taxing damage done then why fuck aren't were taxing pollution? Also, why tax EVs when it's heavy trucks that do the most damage? Once again, Republicans are acting in bad faith.
Tax based on remediation costs, not just to the road but also the environment and STOP SUBSIDIZING THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY.
I keep hearing about how "the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers" and how important the "free market" from Republicans but then they ooze hypocrisy, EVERY FUCKING TIME.
"You can't do that, it will destroy the economy." - every far-right dipshit
Hey, dipshit and thanks for your lack of thinking. Not all policies need to be implemented in an all-or-nothing fashion but can instead be ramped up to provide people time to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
ICE vehicles get tax breaks for doing "road maintenance"—their smoke helpfully tars the roads. EVs? Just freeloaders rubbing the asphalt raw.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think trucks don't pay taxes
From 2021
> A typical 5-axle truck pays $4,454 in annual federal diesel and heavy-vehicle use taxes alone, whereas a car pays $93 in annual federal gas taxes on average. In other words, trucks already pay 48 times more in federal highway user fees than do cars
That's from a trucking lobby group opposing a 25c/mile tax, arguing it would cost truckers earning $53k per year an average of $25k in additional taxes
Trucks already pay taxes. Granted, they do more than 48x the damage compared to a car.
The trucking industry is core to the rest of the economy. Goods need to be transported, everywhere. Especially food. Trains aren't going to deliver stock to your local supermarket.
Also a $20 a year tax on all other cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically they want a nice big fat regressive tax for working Americans to pay so they can offset the additional $5 trillion in tax cuts for billionaires they want.
They gave out so much money to billionaires during covid, somewhere around 12 trillion on top of the 63 trillion we had given them in the last 40 years, that the bond market is starting to get spooked. So at this point if they want more of your money to go to billionaires they need to take it from you directly.
I don't think they're planni
Virginia already does this for hybrids and 4-cyl (Score:2, Offtopic)
Virginia already does this for hybrids and highly-efficient 4-cylinder cars and has for years.
Or a $0.005 Gas tax increase? (Score:2)
Similar article on Electrek points out that the revenue raised would be equivalent to a 1/2-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase (a tax which hasn't been raised in over 30 years).
Remember when gasoline was $1.20/gallon? Inflation has eroded the dollar by ~120% since then, FWIW.
[1]https://electrek.co/2025/04/30... [electrek.co]
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/04/30/republicans-propose-triple-taxing-evs-but-allow-gas-cars-free-ride-on-us-roads/
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about generating more tax revenue, it's about hurting the right people. It's about playing to the base.
NZ charges per kilometre (Score:2)
Until recently, EVs were exempt from road user charges, but in the past couple of years they have been phased in.
Basically, for petrol vehicles the taxes are built into the fuel costs - but because diesel vehicles are used a lot for non-taxable purposes (eg farm use off of public roads), there is no road user charges on diesel fuel. Instead, NZ has the concept of a Road User Charge fee that you have to buy per 1000KM of usage on the public road - the fee varies depending on type of vehicle and weight of ve
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel is tax-free because diesel vehicles are charged higher rates based on GVM
It's only a matter of time before petrol is tax free and everyone pays RUC
They should update the weight classes though, to encourage smaller vehicles that damage the road less.
Like move the 3500kg class down to 3000kg. That would put large SUV's in the higher bracket, while keeping most cars in the lowest.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the weight limit is not a priority, it should be focused on moving petrol vehicles to same system so everyone is paying the same way. The weirdness in the NZ system is PHEV paying 50% rate because there is no way of telling if their mileage was on petrol or electricity. Bringing petrol users under the system removes that weirdness.
Charge by the mile or pound-mile (Score:1)
If you want car taxes to pay for road maintenance, ditch fuel taxes and harge by the mile or pound-mile, not per car.
If you want car taxes to pay for pollution, charge all polluting energy sources based on the pollution they produce. Electric car owners will think they are paying nothing, but if they are using polluting sources for their power, they will pay.
If are charging for general revenue, charging by the car when it's first sold and/or every year make sense, it's easy to enforce.
Either way, ditch tax
Re: Charge by the mile or pound-mile (Score:2)
Just charge your Tesla off a diesel generator.
You can put red dye in it and technically it's not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
"Either way, ditch taxes that are specific to "motor vehicle fuels" - they are no longer fair."
They are as fair as they've ever been. Claiming they have become unfair is assuming a purpose.
European countries have always had higher gas taxes, along with higher vehicle taxes. It's not about fairness, it's part of social engineering, a vital function of government.
Gasoline taxes, should get raised. Benefits for EV use should increase. That's why they won't happen, because Republicans.
Taxes should be raised
Re: (Score:2)
So you think a user-pays tax system is not fair?
Road taxes should be taxed based on road use and how much your vehicle damages the road - distance and GVM/(axle)
You can't tax electricity to pay for roads - why should I pay road taxes for turning on the lights in my home?
How about a weight mile tax for everyone instead? (Score:2)
Since usage damage to roads is directly connected to vehicle weight, why not eliminate the fuel tax and replace it with a pure weight mile tax? Meaning that you pay a cost per mile driven, per pound of gross vehicle weight. Odometers would be checked during annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and the tax would be assessed as part of vehicle registration.
The state of Oregon has a version of this for EVs currently. You can either pay an EV registration surcharge or you can opt to pay per mile. Last time I
Re: (Score:2)
> Since usage damage to roads is directly connected to vehicle weight, why not eliminate the fuel tax and replace it with a pure weight mile tax? Meaning that you pay a cost per mile driven, per pound of gross vehicle weight. Odometers would be checked during annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and the tax would be assessed as part of vehicle registration.
Thankfully vehicle inspections are not a thing in many US states. There is no evidence they have measurable impacts on road safety.
[1]https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao... [gao.gov]
> The state of Oregon has a version of this for EVs currently. You can either pay an EV registration surcharge or you can opt to pay per mile. Last time I checked, if you drive less than about 6,000 miles a year, the pay per mile option was cheaper. If you only drive in Oregon, you can use the odometer, if you drive out of state and don't want to pay for non-Oregon miles, you sign up with a tracking service that monitors if you are driving in or out of state.
No thanks.
> Yes, there would be privacy concerns with various implementations of a weight mile tax in cases where the tax rate might vary based on where you were -- such system would require tracking. But if you drive around with a cell phone, you are being currently being tracked, and many (most?) modern cars are already collecting and reporting location information.
I don't agree with or support the contention because there is already one hole below the water line filling up the boat this somehow magically serves as an excuse for drilling more holes below the water line and ignoring the obvious consequences.
People can elect to leave their phones at home or turn off cellular radios. They can buy
[1] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-705.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
> I see no reason such taxes need be fair or in any useful way reflect cost of individual contributions to road wear.
From this comment and your others, I see we significantly disagree, and that's okay. I am curious however, if you don't feel that the cost for road maintenance should be proportionality paid for by those causing use/damage to the roads, how do you feel road maintenance should be paid for?
Cars will eventually become unaffordable (Score:2)
This along with the ever rising costs to acquire, maintain, and insure cars will drive the middle class out being able to afford a car.
I believe it is going to happen gradually over the next 10-15 years starting with the lower middle class, and progressing to the middle class.
Will we be become like India/Indonesia/Vietnam with tons of electric bikes, scooters and motorcycles?
Will the republicans require electric bikes to be registered like motorcycles so they can be taxed for having an electric motor?
President Musk could have stopped this /s (Score:2)
President Musk could have stopped this /s
Stupid Idea (Score:1)
This is an absolutely STUPID idea. If it’s fair to tax everyone at the same rate, no matter how much use the get out of a product(roads in this case), then just drop the fuel tax and tax ALL vehicles equally. No business exemptions either! It’s not like business vehicles don’t cause most of the road wear in the first place.
Costs (Score:2)
if you want to get road users to pay for the roads they use you need to consider weight, miles, where and when driven. That six lane freeway in the middle of a city is expensive and only necessary a few hours of the day.
If you want to consider public costs like emissions then you need to consider how to monetize those costs. If you want to discourage anti-social behaviors you need to increase the cost of vehicles that do those things.
My favorite idea is an initial registration deposit based on a vehicle's g
Re: (Score:2)
You had me up to weight/place/time. So in other words a record stored by the government of everywhere you've been. Thanks, no.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a problem. Of course they already know where you are if you have a phone.
No fuel tax (Score:2)
ICE cars use a fuel that is taxed, but as far as I am aware the electricity used for cars isnâ(TM)t taxed in the same way. This means that the government will likely suffer a tax shortfall from electric cars. Given this, as much as Iâ(TM)m not a fan of the current Republican government, this tax may actually make sense.
The problem is more likely the reasons they are giving for the new tax and therefore doesnâ(TM)t work in their favour.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of a flat fee for each EV, wouldn't it make more sense to charge a tax on the electric usage of EV chargers? That way, you're getting tax revenue proportional to the mileage driven.
Re: (Score:2)
> Instead of a flat fee for each EV, wouldn't it make more sense to charge a tax on the electric usage of EV chargers? That way, you're getting tax revenue proportional to the mileage driven.
Quire possibly, but right now I don't think anyone has presented a proper path forward.
bah (Score:1)
Reduce the tax the middle class pay and then tax everyone again, what the hell is wrong with these politicians?
4th power law (Score:2)
While I don't support this tax if they are going to do it the tax should be calculated by per axle weight and include heavier ICE vehicles beyond a certain threshold with relative tax amounts in line with 4th power law.
Personally I think cars EVs in particular are too damn heavy. This contributes to added road wear, increased tire and brake wear, associated particulate pollution, increased BOM costs. Additional kinetic energy is an added source of avoidable danger during accidents and poor road conditions
Fair for EVs not ICE vehicles (Score:2)
ICE vehicles pay based on mileage and weight today - itâ(TM)s called the gas tax. Heavier vehicles that drive more miles pay more, and lighter more fuel efficient vehicles pay less. This is how we pay for road maintenance. EVs need to pay their fair share towards road upkeep, preferable by the mile like everyone else.
Cool (Score:2)
Sure, if they implement an $800 ICE tax simultaneously, I'm good.
My 1969 Mustang Grandé with an Edelbrock intake and a Holley double-pumper drinks a bit more than the original 4 barrel carb and factory intake. It takes Premium only, but hey - build a viable EV infrastructure and I'll drive a slot-car too.
Consider it a loan? (Score:2)
From your federal EV tax write off?
Read My Lips (Score:2)
READ MY LIPS ...
New taxes, lots and lots of beautiful new taxes!
Republicans bitch about taxes. . . (Score:2)
⦠when they are not in power, and then when they are in power, they raise them.
Here come the tax and spend Republicans! (Score:2)
Which is better than the usual, spend and spend Republicans, I guess. But between their tarrifs and this, they're going to have to rebrand their 'we hate taxes' bullshit.
Won't matter (Score:1)
States will just add their own fees and it will become a couple of grand a year.
We voted (repeatedly) for a flat $35 state car tab fee in my state. The state just said, "Fine. Then we'll cancel some other program." Even if that other program initially had nothing to do with car tab revenue. They're going to spend the money and there's not shit we can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> They're going to spend the money and there's not shit we can do about it.
I'm confused. Do they work for you or you work for them? Vote them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you vote for when they all do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Great example of the false dillemma fallacy. Multiple times in US history the majority party has been replaced by a brand new political party.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like magically they don't need to repair roads just because they're not getting the car tab.
That means to balance the budget they'll either need to borrow, tax something else, or cut something.
Money is (pretty much) fungible, so they raise it, cut spending, borrow, or increase taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Fees are the most regressive form of taxation. Put a $100 fee on all cars? That eats up FAR more % of income for people who are in poverty than for the rich.
Sales taxes? 2nd most. Those who are lower on the economic ladder spend month-to-month.
Property taxes are the 3nd most regressive - they just get passed down in rent costs.
A FAIR tax system is a graduated income tax system. But that's been fucked over because the rich are fucking retard bastards who won't pay their fair share.
Re: Won't matter (Score:2)
> Fees are the most regressive form of taxation. Put a $100 fee on all cars? That eats up FAR more % of income for people who are in poverty than for the rich.
The poor drive ICE vehicles, if they drive anything, and if they can't swing $0.40/week, maybe car ownership isn't for them?
> Sales taxes? 2nd most. Those who are lower on the economic ladder spend month-to-month.
The vast majority of purchases made by the poor are for staples - food, clothing, etc which is tax-exempt.
> Property taxes are the 3nd most regressive - they just get passed down in rent costs.
Property taxes fund the social and government systems the poor rely on most of all, why shouldn't they contribute to the schools, police, fire, parks, libraries, etc their property taxes go towards?
> A FAIR tax system is a graduated income tax system.
Our current (U.S.) income tax rate is graduated, the first few tens of thousand of i
Re: (Score:2)
> It's not like magically they don't need to repair roads just because they're not getting the car tab.
We keep building the roads. We just cut funding for schools when car tabs don't get paid.
It's one big pot of money. And the people that get screwed are the people least able to defend their programs. Kids don't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas, registering an EV is already $200/yr. The excuse was because we're not paying the states gas tax, but it's clearly punitive, most people do not drive their ICE cars even a fraction of the distance it would take to add up to $200/yr over the base automobile registration.
I wonder if republicans have considered that since we do not currently have a federal car vehicle registration, that they're creating a new tax. And yes, right now they're in control and they can make this favor the gas lobby. But w
Re: Won't matter (Score:2)
In Texas, the average driver pays an estimated $9.52/month in Texas road taxes.
We pay $0.20/gallon in taxes, $0.05 of each gallon's tax revenue (25%) goes towards education.
To burn as much gas to generate $200 in state tax revenue, a driver would need to buy 1,000 gallons of gas in a year, or about 80 gallons/week.
Source: [1]https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tt... [state.tx.us]
[1] https://www.dot.state.tx.us/ttf2011/Presentations/GasTaxPlacemat.pdf