• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington State Pushes Electric Cars, Then Taxes Owners

+ 1000 tax credit
+ 2000 non-payment of road taxes from the purchase of gasoline (10 years)
- 1000 payment of road tax by electric vehicle over ten years
+ 2000 net financial advantage to electric car buyer


those stupid fools who allowed themselves to get duped
View attachment 67139949

There are very few all electric cars out there.

If they are charging this fee on hybrids as well, they are getting paid twice.
 
Last edited:
Sure...a 100 dollar fee a year works. That's still less than the average motorist in Washington pays in gas taxes.

As I explained, you are using a usage argument which has to be based on not only what they are using but how often they are using it. It works on the same principle as doctor office visits. You could have one individual that is always wondering if someone is wrong with them and goes every other week and another that goes once a year while charging them both $100. Charging the former $100 and the later $100 for the entire year makes no sense as the usage of the services provided are different and therefore call for the charges of the individuals to be different for the year in total. If the former went lets say 30 times in the year and the later only went once that would mean the former got charged $100 while the later got charged $100 even if the former used the service 29 more times.

Your argument makes no sense.
 
As I explained, you are using a usage argument which has to be based on not only what they are using but how often they are using it. It works on the same principle as doctor office visits. You could have one individual that is always wondering if someone is wrong with them and goes every other week and another that goes once a year while charging them both $100. Charging the former $100 and the later $100 for the entire year makes no sense as the usage of the services provided are different and therefore call for the charges of the individuals to be different for the year in total. If the former went lets say 30 times in the year and the later only went once that would mean the former got charged $100 while the later got charged $100 even if the former used the service 29 more times.

Your argument makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. To drive you need a road. For a road you need money. Therefore if you drive you should pay to maintain roads. The gasoline tax is an attempt to provide some fairness but the main goal is to make sure that we properly fund our road networks.

Any driver has millions of miles of roads available to them. They pay for the privilage of using that extensive road network whenever they want to. If someone that drives 1/2 a mile decides they want to take a cross country trip tomorrow in their vehicle...well the roads are there and maintained for that trip.
 
Well apparently the state of Washington believes there is. If you drive on the roads of Washington then you are obligated to contribute in some way to their upkeep.

By that logic, people who use public transportation should be charged a fee as well.
 
Do they have to right a hundred dollar check?

No...neither do individual that pay gasoline tax.

If you pay gasoline tax or fee for service you're already paying a portion of the cost to maintain roads. If you aren't paying a fee for service or a gasoline tax you're driving on roads that you didn't help maintain.

I don't see how the two are connected beyond the fact that they are both paying to matain roads.
 
No...neither do individual that pay gasoline tax.

If you pay gasoline tax or fee for service you're already paying a portion of the cost to maintain roads. If you aren't paying a fee for service or a gasoline tax you're driving on roads that you didn't help maintain.

I don't see how the two are connected beyond the fact that they are both paying to matain roads.

Well, the disconnect that I think you're having, is that it isn't right to encourage people to purchase a product, based on avoiding paying taxes, then turn around and slap them with a fee that they weren't aware of prior to the purchase.

If a private company did something like this, you would be screaming for CEO heads on poles in front of the state house.
 
Well, the disconnect that I think you're having, is that it isn't right to encourage people to purchase a product, based on avoiding paying taxes, then turn around and slap them with a fee that they weren't aware of prior to the purchase.

If a private company did something like this, you would be screaming for CEO heads on poles in front of the state house.

They are two different things. If someone had the misconception that they would not have to pay for roads they are SOL. The rebate was for the purchase of the car. They don't have to pay for gasoline. The idea that they don't have to pay taxes to maintain the roads they drive on is just ridiculous.

I bought a hybrid because it made sense....less gas usage and they had the rebates. I'm glad I did even if they made me pay a fee for the less gas I used. I'm still well into the clear when gas prices rise.
 
As I explained, you are using a usage argument which has to be based on not only what they are using but how often they are using it. It works on the same principle as doctor office visits. You could have one individual that is always wondering if someone is wrong with them and goes every other week and another that goes once a year while charging them both $100. Charging the former $100 and the later $100 for the entire year makes no sense as the usage of the services provided are different and therefore call for the charges of the individuals to be different for the year in total. If the former went lets say 30 times in the year and the later only went once that would mean the former got charged $100 while the later got charged $100 even if the former used the service 29 more times.

Your argument makes no sense.

actually, yours does not

we do not incur a vehicle license fee based on mileage driven or hours on the road or based on the damage the vehicle perpetrates on the roadways. a flat rate is imposed. and relative to electric vehicles, that flat rate is approximately one-half what the vehicle owners would incur if they were driving gasoline/diesel autos
 
By that logic, people who use public transportation should be charged a fee as well.

and is a portion of their passage fee not being used for that purpose?
 
Well, the disconnect that I think you're having, is that it isn't right to encourage people to purchase a product, based on avoiding paying taxes, then turn around and slap them with a fee that they weren't aware of prior to the purchase.

If a private company did something like this, you would be screaming for CEO heads on poles in front of the state house.

adjustments to tax incentives happen all the time
 
and is a portion of their passage fee not being used for that purpose?

That would mean that public transportation administrations operate at a profit. We all know that don't happen.
 
That would mean that public transportation administrations operate at a profit. We all know that don't happen.

please explain why that means public transportation operates at a profit
you're just making **** up now
 
And, you're not making sense. :rofl

then you should be in familiar territory

when i posted that there was nothing preventing transit fees from being allocated in some portion to the maintenance and construction of the roadways, you responded that would be proof that the transit system operated at a profit
when i asked for you to elaborate on such a boneheaded conclusion you then insisted i am the one not making sense

in short, you are deflecting

but prove me wrong and explain for us how the allocation of public transportation fees for roadway expenses constitutes proof that the public transportation system operates at a profit
 
then you should be in familiar territory

when i posted that there was nothing preventing transit fees from being allocated in some portion to the maintenance and construction of the roadways, you responded that would be proof that the transit system operated at a profit
when i asked for you to elaborate on such a boneheaded conclusion you then insisted i am the one not making sense

in short, you are deflecting

but prove me wrong and explain for us how the allocation of public transportation fees for roadway expenses constitutes proof that the public transportation system operates at a profit

A government entity that operates at a profit? Right! :rofl
 
No...neither do individual that pay gasoline tax.

If you pay gasoline tax or fee for service you're already paying a portion of the cost to maintain roads. If you aren't paying a fee for service or a gasoline tax you're driving on roads that you didn't help maintain.

I don't see how the two are connected beyond the fact that they are both paying to matain roads.
And this is the point Bubba dodged. If your logic for the tax is that combustible engine operators pay their use fee in gas taxes therefore electric car users should be charged a use fee then it only stands to reason that every public transportation user should be hit with a user fee. And every bicycle rider. And every pedestrian. Of course...the electric car users ARE paying taxes for their electricity they use to charge their cars, but I guess that doesn't count. So...an added tax for EVERYONE would be appropriate, correct?
 
A government entity that operates at a profit? Right! :rofl

so which of your contradictory statements is the lie
where you said the public transportation system would be operating at a profit
or where it cannot be profitable because it is a government operated enterprise

curious debating style, taking both positions simultaneously
 
And this is the point Bubba dodged. If your logic for the tax is that combustible engine operators pay their use fee in gas taxes therefore electric car users should be charged a use fee then it only stands to reason that every public transportation user should be hit with a user fee. And every bicycle rider. And every pedestrian. Of course...the electric car users ARE paying taxes for their electricity they use to charge their cars, but I guess that doesn't count. So...an added tax for EVERYONE would be appropriate, correct?

Sure....there could be a tax everyone is charged equally for use of roads. Our current tax structure taxes individuals with vehicles and it's a consumption tax via gasoline. I have no idea what the point of arguing this is. If you have a different system you'd prefer wright your congressman. If you don't think electric car owners should pay for the maintaince of roads...wright your congressman.

This article was grossly inaccurate since it made the tax as some kind of grab to take back federal or state rebates FOR THE PURCHASE of an electric car. The fact is if the future if highways full of electric cars then the maintaince of roads will be some yearly fee with individuals with a registered owned vehicle.
 
Would this be the same liberal crew that taxes our wages to support out of wedlock childbirth to HS dropouts as an investment in our future? The same logic that says taxation of income, based upon how that income was not spent, is Constitutional, could easily justify an alternate road use taxation scheme, not enirely based on the amount of motor fuel used. I share your "shock" at how moronic gov't logic is, but they will always justify their actions as "for the common good" no matter how little common sense is involved. Vote for morons, live with their decisions, that is the American way.

Or the feds could spend $500 billion+/year meddling in Third World conflicts that don't affect US security. That's the GOP way.
 
Or the feds could spend $500 billion+/year meddling in Third World conflicts that don't affect US security. That's the GOP way.

Really? I seem to recall quite a few demorats voting for that "patriotic" war on terror action. Was Afghanistan not called the "good" war by Obama? I also see quite a few demorats enjoying the military spending being done in their state/district and voting for that as well. Hmm...
 
Sure....there could be a tax everyone is charged equally for use of roads. Our current tax structure taxes individuals with vehicles and it's a consumption tax via gasoline. I have no idea what the point of arguing this is. If you have a different system you'd prefer wright your congressman. If you don't think electric car owners should pay for the maintaince of roads...wright your congressman.

This article was grossly inaccurate since it made the tax as some kind of grab to take back federal or state rebates FOR THE PURCHASE of an electric car. The fact is if the future if highways full of electric cars then the maintaince of roads will be some yearly fee with individuals with a registered owned vehicle.
That's not how I read the article, I read it as first they were sold on overpriced product (which the government subsidized) and one of the selling points was much less gas and obvious savings...and now the government is going to step in to make sure they get their pound of flesh. Which...really...Im fine with...but using their logic every user that travels on the roads should be hit with the same tax.

And no...the don't pay a gasoline user tax but they DO have to pay to charge their car. That isn't taxed?

Its the way of the world. Tax em all...tax them often. Find every opening.
 
actually, yours does not

we do not incur a vehicle license fee based on mileage driven or hours on the road or based on the damage the vehicle perpetrates on the roadways. a flat rate is imposed. and relative to electric vehicles, that flat rate is approximately one-half what the vehicle owners would incur if they were driving gasoline/diesel autos

So therefore it doesn't cover the cost of repair needed for the use of the vehicle. Yeah, that seems to support my argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom