this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
85 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29829 readers
1795 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is more than the average fossil car owner pays in gas taxes, and really bad policy during a world fuel shortage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I’m not against an annual fee for electric cars, but it should be going to the state and not the federal government. The problems have with this are:

  • goes to the feds instead of the states
  • too high, even when using the averages
  • averages are unfair to those who drive under the average
  • money likely not fully going to road upkeep, and most certainly not to funding public transportation

Address those, and make it ten cents per mile driven for all I care.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Make it a fee based on vehicle mass and miles driven, have it apply to all vehicles and eliminate the gas tax.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Or don't eliminate the gas tax, charge ICE vehicles for both, and then use all that money to fund the infrastructure for people to not literally need a car to live.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

That would be a logical and fair way to do it. Which is why it’ll never happen.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why would you want an electric car tax?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

We do NOT want an electric car tax, but it would be fair to treat EVs fairly, especially if it goes toward transportation infrastructure fairly.

Some of the problems with current funding

  • gas tax is insufficient. If we truly want to cover transportation infrastructure, we need to double or triple
  • gas tax is unfair, even before we get to EVs. A more efficient vehicle does not need less infrastructure spending
  • goes toward roads, almost exclusively, new projects almost entirely. I know maintenance is boring but it needs to be done, and should be what we need to solve the problem, not just default to road
  • most transportation options have been starved of funding for a century. We need to fix that. We need choices. We need more scalable support, both up and down
[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gas taxes pay for road construction in most/all states. No gas means no gas tax, which means the funding for infrastructure goes away.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal, but that's the idea anyways.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Hmm

Sounds like a great idea to tax the wealthy in those areas and use it to fund the public services like roads that they force their employees to use to drive to work.

And maybe some public transit too so you don't need to use a road. Or a car. Freedom of choice and all that.

But yeah, they're gonna try to tax them more and more because we certainly couldn't gain energy independence, oh no no.

Wonder when the solar tax comes in. Gotta tax the sun for giving the plebians free energy. Damn commie sun.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And what about states that already charge? Texas charges $200/yr for EVs for the same reason. Will we be double taxed?

[–] TheWilliamist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It is $250 a year for Ohio.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Well, ICE cars already are. I don’t know about Texas but certainly here in California there’s federal taxes on gasoline and state taxes. The state taxes are always explicitly paying for road maintenance, and the federal taxes pay for “infrastructure” in a vague but probably reasonable manner.

We’re all getting lost on the weeds on this one, but in general both the states and the feds are looking to make up the revenue needed to support road infrastructure lost when someone doesn’t buy gas.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, you're also Canadian so it could be any price for all you care lol

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I live in the US, and drive an EV. For the record.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I always assumed you lived at the North Pole 🤔

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

IDK what the fee is for ICE cars, but here (Denmark) all cars have a yearly fee, but EV is generally cheaper, because the fee is based on fuel economy, and the fuel economy of an EV is way better than ICE.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In the US, every car has an annual registration fee (proportional to its value) paid to a state agency. In addition, there are federal and state taxes on each gallon of gas sold meant to be used for maintenance of the roads.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Not exactly, the registration fee is proportional to value too a point, so wealthy people pay less.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So is the $ 130 Fee for EV extra? Is it cheaper or more expensive than ICE?

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, the idea of the $130 is it would be changed to EV drivers who are not currently paying the 18.5 cents per gallon federal gas tax. If it’s more or less than that depends on how many miles the ICE cars are driving, but on average it looks like the $130 would be higher than the about $90 most ICE drivers pay in federal gas tax.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Thanks. 👍

would be changed to EV drivers who are not currently paying the 18.5 cents per gallon federal gas tax.

That's bullshit IMO. That's like punishing people for buying a car that uses renewable energy, over an ICE stinker that ruins the environment both locally and globally.

So they continue more than half a century of bad practices.
My god American law makers are idiots. 😡

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

My god American law makers are idiots.

I mean, no question there.

But the 18.5 cent tax on gas is meant to pay for the maintenance of roads. And because it’s on gasoline, it traditionally has scaled well with the amount of wear a vehicle puts on the roadway.

The $130 isn’t meant as “punishment” of EV drivers, only as a replacement of the funds they aren’t currently paying for road maintenance, which they use just as much as ICE vehicles. More-so, actually, as EVs are heavier than ICE on average.

There can and should be incentives by the government to increase EV adoption, but waiving the cost of road maintenance isn’t the answer.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They're not idiots; it's just that the oil industry patronage machine controls a majority of Congress

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Ah yes sorry, let me correct that: They are corrupt idiots.