
Illinois might start charging $1k per year to own an electric vehicle - gravy
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-electric-vehicle-fee-illinois-20190509-story.html
======
dang
Political might-or-might-not stories aren't substantive enough to be on topic
here. They're cousins to announcement-of-an-announcements.

Note how they had to give this one a booster shot with 'It's outrageous'!

------
deathanatos
> _The justification for the dramatic hike? Electric vehicles don’t provide
> the state with any gas tax revenue._

Oh, that's just farcical. Americans drive an average of slightly less than 14k
miles / year. At that 44¢/gal tax rate, that's ~$200 of tax / year; nowhere
_near_ the proposed $1000. And this comparison assumes that the state doesn't
tax electricity at all.

This smells like someone's representative has been bought and paid for.

~~~
senectus1
its more than that though. gas "tax" helps pay for road building and
maintenance. These cars are still using the roads and still expect more to be
built. the money has to come from somewhere...

In Australia they're having a very similar conversation about people going
"off grid" and still having to pay utilities, because those services are
needed by the greater community (hospitals, water and sewage and those not yet
fortunate enough to be able to afford going off grid)

Really takes some of the shine out of the renewable scene...

~~~
deathanatos
> _gas "tax" helps pay for road building and maintenance. These cars are still
> using the roads and still expect more to be built. the money has to come
> from somewhere..._

That's the point: I'm not saying that EVs shouldn't pay for their fair share
of road maintenance. But the hike heavily implies that's _not_ the case here:
EVs are paying _more_ than their non-electric counterparts (see the math in
the post you're replying to). And not just a little more, several _times_
more.

------
Dangeranger
Since people are finally realizing that electric vehicles can be superior to
internal combustion engines, let’s talk about the real problem, how do we
extract taxes from them? </s>

Seriously though, many states are all pushing these EV taxes at once. It
almost makes you wonder if there is a concerted effort to make EVs less
attractive. If you were a state representative, wouldn’t you first want to see
tangible tax revenue decline before slapping a new tax on a thriving industry?

~~~
mcguire
Or perhaps they're realizing that, as EVs become more popular, the roads still
need to be maintained and want to get ahead of the problem.

~~~
nugget
If every penny of the gas tax had to be spent on public road and
infrastructure improvements, then there'd likely be broad based support for
raising and - as with this proposal - expanding it as needed. However I'd be
willing to bet that the majority if not the entirety of this tax increase will
be spent on legacy pension bailouts instead.

~~~
reaperducer
According to this[1], Illinois state gas tax goes all over the place.

\- 2½¢/gallon to the State Construction Account Fund.

\- $420,000/month for boating safety

\- $350,000/month to improve railroad crossings

\- A "sufficient" amount to legal fees

\- A "sufficient" amount for the administrator and supervisor

\- $30 million/year for vehicle inspection

\- "Amounts ordered paid by the Court of Claims"

\- Fuel tax payments to other states

Then, of what's left...

\- 17% to road construction

\- 28% to a road and bridge program

\- 27% to all municipalities, divided by population

\- 9% to Cook County (Chicago)

\- 10% to counties other than Cook, based on the number of drivers licenses
issued

\- 9% to the townships and road districts, based on the number of miles of
road

Sounds like Illinois to me.

[1]
[https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportatio...](https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-
System/Manuals-
Guides-&-Handbooks/T2/P032_0731MFTSourceUseDistributionMunicipality.pdf)

~~~
beart
> \- $350,000/month to improve railroad crossings

Unless I missed something, this number is incorrect according to
[https://www.icc.illinois.gov/railroad/](https://www.icc.illinois.gov/railroad/)

> Each month $3.5 million in state motor fuel tax receipts is transferred from
> the Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) fund to the Grade Crossing Protection Fund. This
> amount provides the GCPF with $39 million annually to be used for safety
> improvements at highway/rail crossings on local roads and streets.

Off topic, but this seemed like an enormous amount of money to me. And that
doesn't seem to include crossings on state highways which come out of a
different fund.

So the state of Illinois is spending at least $117,000 per day on railroad
crossings. According to the same page, Illinois has 7,600 railroad crossings
so that's at least $15 per day for every railroad crossing in the state.

Edit: I just reviewed your source and it is also cited at 3.5 million.

------
typenil
Personally - since I rarely drive - this would keep me on gas powered cars
indefinitely. There's no way my driving habits amount to $1000 in gas taxes
every year.

I can see how they'd think it was reasonable if they just did the average of
cumulative gas taxes per person, but it doesn't account for use in any way.

~~~
nugget
Illinois wants to raise their gas tax to 44 cents per gallon. Assuming 20 mpg
you'd have to drive about 45,000 miles to hit $1000 in State gas tax. If you
factor in the Federal gas tax too, it drops to about 30,000 miles. The average
American driver drives less than 15,000 miles per year. So a fair equivalent
in terms of EV tax would be $500 or less, especially if you consider that the
drivers racking up the most miles per year are probably the least likely to
buy EV vehicles due to range and charging station limitations.

~~~
Retric
They are also raising the same fee for standard vehicles to $148. So, it’s an
extra 852$ a year for electric cars, or a little over 25k miles including
federal taxes at 20MPG, or 50k miles at 40MPG.

------
akersten
Not surprised coming from the state that wants to tax Netflix [0]. Who's in
charge of coming up with these technologically-regressive taxes anyway? I
guess they're looking for any way they can to prevent bankruptcy, but these
kind of things really rub me the wrong way.

[0]: [https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-bill-would-expand-
ch...](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-bill-would-expand-chicagos-
netflix-tax-statewide/)

~~~
leereeves
What's wrong with taxing Netflix?

Internet companies have been able to avoid paying a lot of taxes, but that's
not going to last forever.

~~~
akersten
> What's wrong with taxing Netflix? Internet companies have been able to avoid
> paying a lot of taxes,

You're mixing two different concepts here. There is a sales tax that applies
to any purchase, which many internet companies did avoid for a while -
although now you'll see that Amazon does automatically apply a sales tax on
purchases depending on your ZIP. Although it would be more accurate to call it
a use tax, since conceptually it's the same tax that you _should_ pay if you
had gone and bought the product in another state and brought it back home
(although no one does this). The idea is that this tax compensates for the
loss of business that a local company may have experienced due to you buying
the good out-of-state.

In the "tax Netflix" case, it's not a sales tax being proposed (your monthly
subscription fee _already_ includes that). It's almost like a vice tax, which
is traditionally used to discourage certain behavior (i.e. cigarette tax),
except movie theaters in Chicago aren't suddenly going out of business and
there's nothing harmful about consuming Netflix.

So it's hard to make an honest argument that there is any socially positive
reason for this tax, and I can't see a "Netflix tax" as anything other than an
opportunistic cash grab by the city. In my book, that's "wrong", but I guess
it depends how much latitude you personally believe cities should have in
creating arbitrary tax schemes.

------
your-nanny
The article would be more helpful if it provided estimates of what gasoline-
vehicle owners typically pay each year.

If it is equivalent, and I doubt it is, then a more effective strategy would
not be lump sum shockers like this.

~~~
1123581321
The same bill proposes a 44c/gallon tax, which means an EV registration
prepays for about 60-70k miles of driving.

Since neither gasoline nor electric cars or light trucks do any damage to
roads compared to commercial trucking, it doesn’t make sense to talk about
either kind of car paying its fair share. That is just a rhetorical method of
selling the public on a new tax.

~~~
CompelTechnic
In Illinois most of the wear on the asphalt surface occurs via ice and snow
causing potholes. This happens over time regardless of heavy traffic.

~~~
basilgohar
While this may be true, big rigs and other ultra-heavy vehicles cause a
disproportionate amount of wear as well.

[0] [https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-
weigh...](https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-
road-damage-levels/)

~~~
reaperducer
The source for that data is a bicycling blog in Colorado which no longer
exists. Without verifiable data, I'd ignore it.

------
seltzered_
For different reasons, there's been articles in years past about high-end EVs
having high car registration fees. This isn't due to them being electric, it's
due to some models being fairly expensive (e.g. Model S/X, i-Pace) with a
taxation system that determines registration fees based on vehicle value. This
is also very particular to cities, where their intentions are encourage and
fund more public transit use.

Links specific to WA state / Seattle:

[https://komonews.com/news/local/drivers-facing-sticker-
shock...](https://komonews.com/news/local/drivers-facing-sticker-shock-in-
latest-car-tab-renewal-bills) \- King County (includes Seattle, WA) car
registration tabs can be rather high to fund transit initiatives.

[https://www.geekwire.com/2019/sb-5971-ev-registration-
fees/](https://www.geekwire.com/2019/sb-5971-ev-registration-fees/) \- WA
state has charged 100/year for EVs, set to be 150/year in the future. The
intent is to cover state-level road maintenance.

It's worth remembering the high fee concerns may change as more EVs get
cheaper, and factor in Federal / State tax rebates that occur upon purchase. I
don't own an EV, but personally I worry a bit less about the govt-imposed fees
and more about the higher insurance costs for certain EVs (Tesla models).

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is also very particular to cities

It's not, because registration fees being locality discursiva isn't a thing in
all states; also, a large minority of states have adopted registration
surcharges on electric and sometimes hybrid vehicles for road construction to
offset some of the gas tax losses.

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/new-fees-on-hybrid-
and-e...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/new-fees-on-hybrid-and-electric-
vehicles.aspx#map)

~~~
seltzered_
I was talking about value-based registration fees (which tend to be particular
to cities - particularly those whose tax revenue is primarly based on
comsumption/sales tax like WA), not EV-specific fees (which are generally
statewide).

~~~
dragonwriter
> I was talking about value-based registration fees (which tend to be
> particular to cities

Lots of states have value-based registration fees.

------
kolbe
“I thought Illinois was progressive and would want to encourage EV ownership.”

Illinois just pretends to be progressive because it allows politically
connected people to steal more money.

~~~
reaperducer
An Illinois Democrat will have many of the same views and votes as a
Republican in another state. (Examples: Almost every Chicago mayor since the
1950's)

It's one of the things that made me realize that there is no longer
Democrat/Republican Progressive/Conservative in American politics. It's all
just people aligning themselves with whichever tribe they think will propel
them the farthest in their particular geography.

------
prklmn
Let's envision a world where only electric vehicles are driven. How is a tax
collected to keep the roads in good shape - an electricity consumption tax?

~~~
rsstack
Is there a reason income + property + sales taxes can't maintain roads as
well? You don't need to tax cars to fund roads, you don't need to tax paper to
fund schools.

~~~
reaperducer
In states without a lot of taxable land, vehicle registration pays for
schools.

It's why a car that costs less than $100 to register in Illinois costs $600 or
more to register in Nevada.

------
sonnyblarney
It's obviously problematic but the impetus: missing tax revenues to pay for
infrastructure - is a very real issue.

If as it turns out fuel taxes were major contributors to paying for the roads
that make cars possible ... well, this issue has to be addressed.

Ecological issues aside, the underlying economic impacts are real, and we
should consider them enlightening in a way because they help us understand
just how much things cost, how they get paid for, and what we're going to need
to do if we want to realign everything.

Without knowing the breakdown ... maybe it's just possible that good chunk of
'gas savings' is really just 'not having to pay taxes which pay for roads'.

Maybe as a commenter above pointed out, it's only closer to '$200/year' \-
fair enough, but I think even a $200 tax might be unsettling to us as well.

I don't know what the answer is, but whatever it is, we can't ignore some of
these realities.

------
dade_
Since gasoline taxes for road improvements are actually a scam (good luck
proving where the money actually goes) , they should just change it to a
registration fee for everyone. Eliminating a tax saves a lot of money and I
imagine a gas tax is rather complicated to administer.

~~~
joezydeco
The other possibility, and this has already been floated in Illinois, is
putting a tracker on every vehicle and taxing drivers by the mile.

A gas tax increase, in comparison, doesn't look so bad.

~~~
Gibbon1
My suggestion is considering the negative externalizes from gasoline powered
cars it would be better to make up the revenue with an excise tax on new ICE
cars.

IE, don't tax fossil fuels, tax products that commit us to consuming fossil
fuels.

------
protomyth
I would prefer they attach a use tax to the electric chargers (both home and
elsewhere). This $1k per year tax is going to make sure no lower income person
buy an electric car. The at-the-pump taxes are gradual and not a catastrophic
hit. At some point we will get charging technology close enough to have them
replace gas stations and folks won't have to have a garage / upper class
apartment parking to own an electric car.

Although we are talking politicians, I am pretty sure someone can come up with
a formula involving the weight of the vehicle and range to match it to the tax
of ICE vehicles.

------
bfrog
Yeah, I mean, how many new taxes can we get put on us? It's insane. How about
fixing the budget instead. We already have the highest property taxes. No
wonder people are leaving in droves.

------
hindsightbias
Americans spend $50k for a car and want their roads for free.

------
throw03172019
Federal government gives rebates for electric vehicles. States tax electric
vehicles. Fantastic.

~~~
_rpd
The article says that the state is giving rebates as well ...

> $7,500 in federal incentives and $4,000 in state incentives

------
willio58
Disgusting abuse of taxes.

------
jjtheblunt
Illinois is a case-study in the cancer that is party politicians,
unfulfillable promises, and decades of iteration thereof.

~~~
yborg
Illinois is a case study of the cancer that is Mike Madigan, the shadow
governor of the state for more than 30 years. He is perhaps the last of the
old-school Democratic machine bosses, although he would operate exactly the
same way if he was a nominal Republican. Until the man dies, the state will
continue to rot.

~~~
reaperducer
_the last of the old-school Democratic machine bosses_

If only. There's plenty of others in the background waiting for their chance.

