One of the most compelling reasons to switch to an electric vehicle or a hybrid is to get away from paying for gasoline.
Not necessarily to get away from burning gasoline for transportation needs, but to get away from paying for it. Yes, the environment is a concern, but it’s hard to think you’re making a real difference when, big picture, you look at the lax standards of other countries, polluting industries in general, and issues such as deforestation and massive oil spills. It’s daunting.
On the other hand, saving some cash to put in your pocket for your kids’ clothing and for food and shelter is a very immediate and real concern for most people. An affordable electric car that burns no gas at all is like putting money in the bank.
If you look at a vehicle such as the new BMW i3 electric, the miles-per-gallon equivalent is 137 in city driving. Since electric cars don’t burn gasoline, what does this number really mean?
Simply put, it’s calculated on a cost comparison between gasoline and electricity for two vehicles to cover the same distance. What that 137 number really means in terms we can all understand is that it costs about one-fifth the money to go the same distance as a car rated at 25 mpg in the city, which I would consider a very efficient vehicle.
Sign me up for that, in addition to all the federal and state grant money to bring down the purchase price to the point I can afford it.
Here’s the funny thing. We all know that governments are dependent on taxes to fund stuff in general. And we all know that the tax on gasoline is enormous. In many instances there’s tax on tax.
But what if everyone suddenly started driving electric cars and no longer used gasoline? How would the government replace that revenue?
Well, the good state of California is studying a new road fee that would be based on the amount of miles you drive. This would somehow replace gasoline tax as we slowly move away from it.
Assuming that your total yearly driving cost for a gasoline-powered vehicle remained exactly the same after switching to the new tax, the big losers are, you guessed it, people who bought electric cars. The money they thought they were saving would be clawed back through mileage fees, and that marvelous 137 mpg equivalent for the BMW i3 would take quite a tumble. And depending on how far that number fell, it might mean that the only reason to buy an electric car would be because it produces little or no emissions. If you reread the first couple of paragraphs of this column, you’ll recall why that is a hard sell. Heck, it’s a hard sell now even with the cost savings on the fuel and the government subsidies to buy an electric car.
I, for one, understand that that lost gasoline revenue will need to be replaced or cuts to services somewhere will have to happen. California obviously sees the handwriting on the wall: Gasoline will eventually go the way of coal (bad example) or the way of the dinosaur (you see what I did there, right?) and it wants to be ahead of the curve to replace that money or even to make more. But should it really come at the expense of those who are adopting electric cars?
I think that’s the ultimate slap in the face, actually. To be led to buy an electric based on fuel-cost savings and subsidies, only to be hit with a road tax based on miles driven?
It kind of makes you wonder how the government would recoup tax money if we all suddenly began riding bicycles. It probably wouldn’t matter. Big Brother would still find a way to get its hand in your pocket.
Source: http://www.timesdispatch.com/richmond-drives/car-talk/it-doesn-t-matter-what-you-drive-the-tax-man/article_064730f4-6aa1-11e4-a206-e383ec76a7e2.html
Comments are closed.
