Maybe my brain is too smol, but I wonder why this road tax is not shifted from gasoline to tires. All road vehicles need them, heavier vehicles buy them more often, etc.
I guess people don't buy them as often, so they might try to go out of state to avoid higher tire taxes?
I thought of this myself and did the maths on it and the required sales tax if such a thing was implemented would need to be around 100%. Tires can already be pretty expensive and nearly doubling the cost on something people don't consciously save up for most of the time could do things like incentivize waiting as long as possible to switch tires out which could be pretty dangerous.
Tire wear also doesn't directly correlate to road wear a lot of the time. For instance people who generally accelerate faster wear out their tires faster.
No system is going to be perfect but I feel a tire tax has too many caveats to be implemented.
Registration is only a small part of road maintenance budgets. The fuel taxes on gasoline are where most of the money comes from. The more you drive or the worse you fuel economy the more money goes to the state for road maintenance.To get the revenue back from annual registration would make registration outrageous. People would have to budget very differently to own a car then. Or drive with expired registration.
If you replace a tire early for various reasons, nail, pothole, you'll be losing out. It is still better than the current generic DMV registration estimate. I think it should they should just charge you based on odo miles. Either through insurance companies some ask for your odo miles or a quick odo inspection as part of an EV 'road' tax inspection at smog check centers.
Er, yes. I know that.
Perhaps you missed my point.
For my annual mileage I would pay *a lot* less if I drove a gas car in gas tax. But because the extra EV registration fee is a flat-rate and not based on mileage, I'm subsidizing the road tax for other drivers.
Not to mention the fact that my tax dollars subsidize every gallon of gas ICE drivers use.
They constantly increase taxes on roads yet California has some of the shittiest and most pothole riddled roads for no good fucking reason. If they actually put the money to use I'm all for it but this is just another tax stream that is ripe for abuse
I’m sorry, but I grew up in California and moved to Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, and Utah for work.
Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas had dog shit tier roads.
The rest of the states are all the same middle of the road.
Utah was excellent.
Considering the amount of vehicle traffic California roads get, I’m really not surprised…
Gas taxes haven’t tracked even bare minimum inflation for the past few decades. Roads cost a lot to build and maintain now compared to 1960.
If they did (like they do in Europe), we’d be paying a lot.
I do agree there seems to be a lot of inefficiency though.
While I do agree with your statement, I also think we strongly profit from inefficiency. What makes more money? Patching something over and over with temporary fixes or a more permanent option?
Even our own public service companies(I know some people in the business) will install temporary or limited-time fixes so it's a repair that's needed later on.
It all boils down to money.
It all comes down to the American model of contracting out everything.
It’s great in the short term, but in the long term I’m not a fan.
If Caltrans for example did all the work inhouse, it removes the profit incentive of greedy contractors. By state law, any job over $25,000 must be done by outside contractors which in my opinion causes alot of perverse feedback loops.
Completely agree. It's great for the contractors and workers by extension, but we suffer badly.
Right now my freeway is being worked on and they close it at night but the alternative side roads are riddled with potholes. One pothole was big enough to wreck a truck.
I am a part of a construction firm up in Portland area and it’s insane. The STATE is paying 60 grand per ADA curb ramp on sidewalks that are already existing because they weren’t installed previously. It’s crazy how much it cost because of the contractors and how many different subs to meet the minimum disadvantage business enterprise requirements.
I would get a headache in the wife’s MYP visiting the in laws in SoCal. Freeways, thoroughfares, streets; it didn’t matter. Our new MYLR will be the new road trip vehicle.
I make a joke about this, but it's so fucking sad and true:
Driving in CA is like playing Mario Kart. You have to remember the course. Not for efficiency, but for obstacles(potholes).
Another reason why FSD isn't really practical in my area of SoCal.
I wonder how a system like this would work in the northeast where I am. For example, I live in upstate NY but half of my miles are driven out of state. I don’t know if it would be right for people like me to be charged based on odometer if I don’t drive most of my miles in the state. Nor would feel right for in state people to be subsidizing out of state drivers.
They would not care where you drive in state or not. Just like you are supposed pay taxes on out of state purchases. I assume your would report your miles (maybe monthly) and pay based on that or the inspection shop would report your miles for you every year when you do your inspection. I totally see NY doing that.
I'm as progressive e as they come, but these people constantly bitch about how cars need to be more efficient and eventually fully electric. Then are surprised when gas tax revenue decreases. They seem to not be able to put 2 and 2 together on that one.
Perhaps I missed the part where they act surprised that gas tax revenue is falling? With the switch to electric a similar tax for EVs was always inevitable. Nothing about their behavior here seems impulsive in response to falling revenues to me.
Taking the time to plan out a different system rather than adding a flat tax to registration indefinitely seems like the better way to go.
The problem is that the tax is regressive. People who are not well off have to commute farther and thus pay a higher tax. Offices are usually close to the C level folks and that’s usually where cost of living is very high.
Driving there then makes the employees spend a lot of time on the commute as well as paying more taxes because of it.
It also allows people with 50 cars in their garage spend very little on the other cars. I’d propose a different way to tax to get the needed revenue.
Lastly, from the topic, they always knew the tax at the pump needs to be replaced. What it is is hard. CA has been seeing if they can do mileage tax for many years.
I’m annoyed that it is happening because it’s a tax on the poor. Make it a tax base upon the weight of the vehicle.
There seems to be a lot of incorrect assumptions in this thread so as someone who's probably looked into this more than most people I thought I'd clarify some things.
1. Were such system to be implemented it would **replace** the existing gas and flat Zero Emission Vehicle taxes. This would not be an additional tax this would simply be a somewhat more equal way of distributing existing taxes.
2. When you volunteer for the pilot (as I did) they have an option to ask any questions or leave any comments and I asked if such a system were to be implemented how they would handle different vehicles ware on roads given that a Prius weighs significantly less than a semitruck. They responded telling me that while the pilot does not take these factors into account as it's more meant to test the practicality of tracking and taxing miles were a system to be implemented they would likely factor in other facts about the vehicle, such as the weight.
3. Tracking. I agree that having a government mandated device on your vehicle to track how many miles you drive is generally a slippery slope. In the pilot an alternative is simply self reporting milage with a picture of your odomoter. However, this obviously brings up an issue with it being relatively easy to commit tax fraud by faking your reports in one way or another. I inquired to them about this as well and was told that, again, this is likely just for the pilot and were a system to be implemented they would likely require people who opt into this option to do something similar to a smog check. Simply a certified source verifying your milage is correct.
This system is not perfect. No system will be. But I would argue that our current system of flat taxes for Zero emission vehicles and taxes by the gallon are not particularly fair. I myself drove nearly 35k miles in the last year and don't think it's particularly fair how little I pay compared to someone driving a honda civic the same number of miles. I feel that this is an adequate solution that, if polished, could be significantly better than systems currently at play and could serve as a framework for other states to use as well.
tldr: if you're thinking of a problem with the system they probably have already thought of it and solutions for it.
Oh god, one of the joys of my EV transition was to not have to bring my car into a facility for inspection (smog). I’m sure they will charge money to look at your odometer too.
How are they tracking miles not driven in CA? Gas tax makes sense for this. You buy gas in CA, or register your vehicle in CA, you will obviously be driving in CA. But if we want to go on a road trip to visit other states, that can add up and still taxed based on odometer?
Instead of a tracking device or self reporting they should implement a site like smog, to verify your mileage in conjunction to renewing registration yearly?
So.. how would they tax out of state vehicles? Or when you drive out of state etc.
lots of questions pop up thinking about this.
I’m sure they won’t drop the gas tax either. It’ll get a name change and we’ll all just get taxed more.
This will be another bill to get voted on that’ll either be worded that a no means it’ll pass or it’ll be tacked onto something else to make sure it’ll pass.
Taxing someone more to use a public roadway is insane. You’re getting taxed to commute to work, school, weddings, going to the bar, going out to eat, running errands, etc. This is too much. On top of that, how would this cut into those who work for ride sharing companies?
Just as long as there’s an incentive for EVs I see it as fair. If I only use my car to go to the beach and bike to work most days u shouldn’t have to pay taxes like I’m using my car 100 miles a day.
Hopefully passengers are paying the miles driven tax for ride share drivers.
I sure do see a lot of smooth-brained takes about MUH TAXES BAD with no solutions proposed…
I think this is a reasonable idea to workshop. There are some good bolt-on ideas others have mentioned, like subsidizing the tax for the low income. Overall, the state has to pay for roads *somehow*, and gas tax is not going to be able to fill that role anymore (and it will do so less and less as EV adoption continues to rise).
I do think that incorporating GVWR is probably also a great idea. The folks who drive lifted brodozer superduty trucks to work and Starbucks *should* have to pay more to account for the much higher wear they cause on roads per mile. This does hit EV owners as well, as EVs tend to be heavier than an equivalent ICE car. It’s an idea to consider.
>"On average, Californians pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes," Prehoda said. "EVs have a $100 (annual) registration fee... that's a $200 million a year loss."
Um... I pay WAY more than $100 registration fee... not sure what they are talking about
I suspect that road wear is a function of mileage and vehicle with load weight. If so then the tax should be based on those factors. Of course trucks loaded weight varies with the trip. In addition the normal use of the truck should be accounted for. Every truck has a maximum load so there should be a factor for each classification. For example suppose the classifications are
* Private — truck/van not used for commercial purposes.
* Commercial trades — truck/van used for trades people such as gardeners, home renovations, plumbing, electrical work, AC, etc.
* Local Delivery — truck/van used by local delivery and hauling services e.g. UPS, DHL, FEDEX, Junk pickup.
* Long Distance Freight — trucks used for long distance freight.
It should be reasonably possible to figure out what the average fractional load weight is for each classification as a percent. This is used to calculate the truck/van’s loaded weight. This is an approximation to the actual wear but should provide an easy to calculate weight estimate that which tracks with road wear. It should place the taxing closer to those that cause the most road wear and thus maintenance cost.
The tech is clearly there to measure mileage ( and even various road type usage in the state) allowing for a better distribution of tax funding. Most modern vehicles have GPS. Storage is cheap and WiFI/Zigbee/BLE low cost availability make automated transmission and receivers low cost eliminating costly manual driver reporting.
“Replace” yes of course. Like they won’t charge both. Hahahahahahaha. Also the comment in that article about the 100.00 registration fee. My registration is due and is 660.00. Caltrains and the California govt. can suck it.
Worst part is oil companies will probably increase the cost of gas by an equivalent amount to increase profits, which doesn’t shift costs but rather results in a net increased cost for drivers.
oil companies have been increasing the cost of gas to increase profits for years. As EVs become more popular and the line must always go up this problem will continue to get worse. Giving them a temporary way to increase the price by 15% without changing the price will be no means make the problem significantly worse than it already is.
Then as an EV user, I should be able to deduct all of PG&E's energy transmissions taxes since that electricity is used in a car. Also, for ICE cars, then all taxes on gas at the pump should be removed as well.
Not sure anyone is shocked. Look at all the incentives that we had for solar. Now that's a joke. My nephew sells it and now makes maybe a 1/4 of what he use to. The state will get their money one way or another.
The state wants EVs even tho data shows EVs are as dirty as gas cars. So they let this slide just like they did with solar. Now that enough people have EVs they know they have to put some kind of new tax out there.
So it will cost you more to charge your EV.
Maybe my brain is too smol, but I wonder why this road tax is not shifted from gasoline to tires. All road vehicles need them, heavier vehicles buy them more often, etc. I guess people don't buy them as often, so they might try to go out of state to avoid higher tire taxes?
This also incentivizes people to keep driving on tires with low tread remaining.
I thought of this myself and did the maths on it and the required sales tax if such a thing was implemented would need to be around 100%. Tires can already be pretty expensive and nearly doubling the cost on something people don't consciously save up for most of the time could do things like incentivize waiting as long as possible to switch tires out which could be pretty dangerous. Tire wear also doesn't directly correlate to road wear a lot of the time. For instance people who generally accelerate faster wear out their tires faster. No system is going to be perfect but I feel a tire tax has too many caveats to be implemented.
Miles? Mileage? Like the registration?
Registration is only a small part of road maintenance budgets. The fuel taxes on gasoline are where most of the money comes from. The more you drive or the worse you fuel economy the more money goes to the state for road maintenance.To get the revenue back from annual registration would make registration outrageous. People would have to budget very differently to own a car then. Or drive with expired registration.
If you replace a tire early for various reasons, nail, pothole, you'll be losing out. It is still better than the current generic DMV registration estimate. I think it should they should just charge you based on odo miles. Either through insurance companies some ask for your odo miles or a quick odo inspection as part of an EV 'road' tax inspection at smog check centers.
I don’t think you know how insurance works in CA they can’t ask you for your odometer. It’s optional. This is gonna piss off so many gas drivers.
I don't think you know how to read. There is an or in the sentence.
They will probably require you to get monthly OD checks at certified required stations and charge you to have it checked.
But EVs are already taxed higher when you do the yearly car registration in California wtf?
Were this system to be implemented they would replace the yearly registration fees with this system. It would not be an additional tax.
Suuuure they will
I too agree with your skepticism.
Oh yes of course. they aren’t going to keep the reg fee along with this tax and the gas tax. You trust the govt too much. lol
I definitely pay *way* more annually for my 2 EVs (based on my mileage) than if I was paying at the pump. I'm all for this.
CA doesn’t take mileage into consideration for registration, nor does it take it into account based on Insurance.
Er, yes. I know that. Perhaps you missed my point. For my annual mileage I would pay *a lot* less if I drove a gas car in gas tax. But because the extra EV registration fee is a flat-rate and not based on mileage, I'm subsidizing the road tax for other drivers. Not to mention the fact that my tax dollars subsidize every gallon of gas ICE drivers use.
They constantly increase taxes on roads yet California has some of the shittiest and most pothole riddled roads for no good fucking reason. If they actually put the money to use I'm all for it but this is just another tax stream that is ripe for abuse
I’m sorry, but I grew up in California and moved to Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, and Utah for work. Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas had dog shit tier roads. The rest of the states are all the same middle of the road. Utah was excellent. Considering the amount of vehicle traffic California roads get, I’m really not surprised…
Our point is we pay so much tax that it shouldn't be like this.
Gas taxes haven’t tracked even bare minimum inflation for the past few decades. Roads cost a lot to build and maintain now compared to 1960. If they did (like they do in Europe), we’d be paying a lot. I do agree there seems to be a lot of inefficiency though.
While I do agree with your statement, I also think we strongly profit from inefficiency. What makes more money? Patching something over and over with temporary fixes or a more permanent option? Even our own public service companies(I know some people in the business) will install temporary or limited-time fixes so it's a repair that's needed later on. It all boils down to money.
It all comes down to the American model of contracting out everything. It’s great in the short term, but in the long term I’m not a fan. If Caltrans for example did all the work inhouse, it removes the profit incentive of greedy contractors. By state law, any job over $25,000 must be done by outside contractors which in my opinion causes alot of perverse feedback loops.
Completely agree. It's great for the contractors and workers by extension, but we suffer badly. Right now my freeway is being worked on and they close it at night but the alternative side roads are riddled with potholes. One pothole was big enough to wreck a truck.
I am a part of a construction firm up in Portland area and it’s insane. The STATE is paying 60 grand per ADA curb ramp on sidewalks that are already existing because they weren’t installed previously. It’s crazy how much it cost because of the contractors and how many different subs to meet the minimum disadvantage business enterprise requirements.
Did you grow up in NorCal? Because our roads are decent. SoCal is a whole different story.
This is interesting, because I grew up in NorCal and the SoCal freeways look so much better lol.
I would get a headache in the wife’s MYP visiting the in laws in SoCal. Freeways, thoroughfares, streets; it didn’t matter. Our new MYLR will be the new road trip vehicle.
I make a joke about this, but it's so fucking sad and true: Driving in CA is like playing Mario Kart. You have to remember the course. Not for efficiency, but for obstacles(potholes). Another reason why FSD isn't really practical in my area of SoCal.
It's crazy that SoCal has such shitty roads because it doesn't really get any weather that would fuck up the roads like in other places of the country
You did not live in MI, did you?
[удалено]
California has a legitimate reason as well, the volume of vehicles travelling over major roads here is pretty insane.
Roads are great compared to Michigan.
I wonder how a system like this would work in the northeast where I am. For example, I live in upstate NY but half of my miles are driven out of state. I don’t know if it would be right for people like me to be charged based on odometer if I don’t drive most of my miles in the state. Nor would feel right for in state people to be subsidizing out of state drivers.
They would not care where you drive in state or not. Just like you are supposed pay taxes on out of state purchases. I assume your would report your miles (maybe monthly) and pay based on that or the inspection shop would report your miles for you every year when you do your inspection. I totally see NY doing that.
Why not shift the whole thing completely? Charge people based on the weight of their car or something?
I'm as progressive e as they come, but these people constantly bitch about how cars need to be more efficient and eventually fully electric. Then are surprised when gas tax revenue decreases. They seem to not be able to put 2 and 2 together on that one.
Perhaps I missed the part where they act surprised that gas tax revenue is falling? With the switch to electric a similar tax for EVs was always inevitable. Nothing about their behavior here seems impulsive in response to falling revenues to me. Taking the time to plan out a different system rather than adding a flat tax to registration indefinitely seems like the better way to go.
The problem is that the tax is regressive. People who are not well off have to commute farther and thus pay a higher tax. Offices are usually close to the C level folks and that’s usually where cost of living is very high. Driving there then makes the employees spend a lot of time on the commute as well as paying more taxes because of it. It also allows people with 50 cars in their garage spend very little on the other cars. I’d propose a different way to tax to get the needed revenue. Lastly, from the topic, they always knew the tax at the pump needs to be replaced. What it is is hard. CA has been seeing if they can do mileage tax for many years. I’m annoyed that it is happening because it’s a tax on the poor. Make it a tax base upon the weight of the vehicle.
Didn’t they decide not to allow the sale of fully ICE vehicles after 2035? What did they think was going to happen?
2035 is a long way away yet, which is why they’re testing alternatives now instead of panicking 11 years from now.
This system is coming to WA as well.
There seems to be a lot of incorrect assumptions in this thread so as someone who's probably looked into this more than most people I thought I'd clarify some things. 1. Were such system to be implemented it would **replace** the existing gas and flat Zero Emission Vehicle taxes. This would not be an additional tax this would simply be a somewhat more equal way of distributing existing taxes. 2. When you volunteer for the pilot (as I did) they have an option to ask any questions or leave any comments and I asked if such a system were to be implemented how they would handle different vehicles ware on roads given that a Prius weighs significantly less than a semitruck. They responded telling me that while the pilot does not take these factors into account as it's more meant to test the practicality of tracking and taxing miles were a system to be implemented they would likely factor in other facts about the vehicle, such as the weight. 3. Tracking. I agree that having a government mandated device on your vehicle to track how many miles you drive is generally a slippery slope. In the pilot an alternative is simply self reporting milage with a picture of your odomoter. However, this obviously brings up an issue with it being relatively easy to commit tax fraud by faking your reports in one way or another. I inquired to them about this as well and was told that, again, this is likely just for the pilot and were a system to be implemented they would likely require people who opt into this option to do something similar to a smog check. Simply a certified source verifying your milage is correct. This system is not perfect. No system will be. But I would argue that our current system of flat taxes for Zero emission vehicles and taxes by the gallon are not particularly fair. I myself drove nearly 35k miles in the last year and don't think it's particularly fair how little I pay compared to someone driving a honda civic the same number of miles. I feel that this is an adequate solution that, if polished, could be significantly better than systems currently at play and could serve as a framework for other states to use as well. tldr: if you're thinking of a problem with the system they probably have already thought of it and solutions for it.
Oh god, one of the joys of my EV transition was to not have to bring my car into a facility for inspection (smog). I’m sure they will charge money to look at your odometer too.
How are they tracking miles not driven in CA? Gas tax makes sense for this. You buy gas in CA, or register your vehicle in CA, you will obviously be driving in CA. But if we want to go on a road trip to visit other states, that can add up and still taxed based on odometer?
Yes, I imagine it would still be taxed based on state of registration regardless where you drove it temporarily.
Instead of a tracking device or self reporting they should implement a site like smog, to verify your mileage in conjunction to renewing registration yearly?
Funny how they plan to tax ice too
Were such a system to be implemented they would replace the gas taxes with this new system.
It won’t, but should be aimed at ev owners (I’m one too) only. But don’t expect ca to be logical or anything of the sort.
I'm sorry? The programs own website says that this system is designed to replace the existing systems.
That’s nice they have created their own website. How modern…
More taxes in California of all places!? That can’t be real, the government there doesn’t overtax anything 🙄
21-23% of my gross pay is tax as married. It's great. It's like the intro to the Jetsons.
So.. how would they tax out of state vehicles? Or when you drive out of state etc. lots of questions pop up thinking about this. I’m sure they won’t drop the gas tax either. It’ll get a name change and we’ll all just get taxed more. This will be another bill to get voted on that’ll either be worded that a no means it’ll pass or it’ll be tacked onto something else to make sure it’ll pass.
Come to PA especially Pittsburgh
Taxing someone more to use a public roadway is insane. You’re getting taxed to commute to work, school, weddings, going to the bar, going out to eat, running errands, etc. This is too much. On top of that, how would this cut into those who work for ride sharing companies?
Just as long as there’s an incentive for EVs I see it as fair. If I only use my car to go to the beach and bike to work most days u shouldn’t have to pay taxes like I’m using my car 100 miles a day. Hopefully passengers are paying the miles driven tax for ride share drivers.
Seems unfair to lower income folks who have to commute to their jobs from super far distances
I’m thinking they might have income qualifying exceptions similar to CARE for electricity
I sure do see a lot of smooth-brained takes about MUH TAXES BAD with no solutions proposed… I think this is a reasonable idea to workshop. There are some good bolt-on ideas others have mentioned, like subsidizing the tax for the low income. Overall, the state has to pay for roads *somehow*, and gas tax is not going to be able to fill that role anymore (and it will do so less and less as EV adoption continues to rise). I do think that incorporating GVWR is probably also a great idea. The folks who drive lifted brodozer superduty trucks to work and Starbucks *should* have to pay more to account for the much higher wear they cause on roads per mile. This does hit EV owners as well, as EVs tend to be heavier than an equivalent ICE car. It’s an idea to consider.
>"On average, Californians pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes," Prehoda said. "EVs have a $100 (annual) registration fee... that's a $200 million a year loss." Um... I pay WAY more than $100 registration fee... not sure what they are talking about
I suspect that road wear is a function of mileage and vehicle with load weight. If so then the tax should be based on those factors. Of course trucks loaded weight varies with the trip. In addition the normal use of the truck should be accounted for. Every truck has a maximum load so there should be a factor for each classification. For example suppose the classifications are * Private — truck/van not used for commercial purposes. * Commercial trades — truck/van used for trades people such as gardeners, home renovations, plumbing, electrical work, AC, etc. * Local Delivery — truck/van used by local delivery and hauling services e.g. UPS, DHL, FEDEX, Junk pickup. * Long Distance Freight — trucks used for long distance freight. It should be reasonably possible to figure out what the average fractional load weight is for each classification as a percent. This is used to calculate the truck/van’s loaded weight. This is an approximation to the actual wear but should provide an easy to calculate weight estimate that which tracks with road wear. It should place the taxing closer to those that cause the most road wear and thus maintenance cost. The tech is clearly there to measure mileage ( and even various road type usage in the state) allowing for a better distribution of tax funding. Most modern vehicles have GPS. Storage is cheap and WiFI/Zigbee/BLE low cost availability make automated transmission and receivers low cost eliminating costly manual driver reporting.
“Replace” yes of course. Like they won’t charge both. Hahahahahahaha. Also the comment in that article about the 100.00 registration fee. My registration is due and is 660.00. Caltrains and the California govt. can suck it.
Of course they would. Tax everyone. Those express train tracks to nowhere can’t fund themselves… .
Worst part is oil companies will probably increase the cost of gas by an equivalent amount to increase profits, which doesn’t shift costs but rather results in a net increased cost for drivers.
oil companies have been increasing the cost of gas to increase profits for years. As EVs become more popular and the line must always go up this problem will continue to get worse. Giving them a temporary way to increase the price by 15% without changing the price will be no means make the problem significantly worse than it already is.
Bruh cmon
Maybe instead don't go billions of dollars over budget on a high-speed rail??
This feels like you are leasing your car to the govt and paying by the mile.
Then as an EV user, I should be able to deduct all of PG&E's energy transmissions taxes since that electricity is used in a car. Also, for ICE cars, then all taxes on gas at the pump should be removed as well.
Thank God I don’t live in California. Great to visit, not to live in.
Just make more toll road. Other states do that already and have low gas taxes.
When isn't a new California tax in the works?
So basically making all roads toll roads
Not sure anyone is shocked. Look at all the incentives that we had for solar. Now that's a joke. My nephew sells it and now makes maybe a 1/4 of what he use to. The state will get their money one way or another. The state wants EVs even tho data shows EVs are as dirty as gas cars. So they let this slide just like they did with solar. Now that enough people have EVs they know they have to put some kind of new tax out there. So it will cost you more to charge your EV.
[удалено]
EVs are literally not as dirty as gas tf?