Post #2893485
2026-05-20 04:22 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@dudleyflippendoodle@lemmy.zip 2026-05-20 04:44
Oregon has a pay-per-mile system that would be more fair, IMO. Not sure if they still have it but at one point, they let you choose between having a tracker or just self-reporting your mileage. Makes sense if you use the road less, you should pay less and vice-versa. Flat tax just spreads the estimated additional wear and cost around to everyone, like going out to dinner with a group and splitting the bill evenly vs just paying for what you ordered.
-
@Pika@sh.itjust.works 2026-05-20 05:56
The proposed EV tax would require almost 20k miles a year in order to break even if you compared a 24 mile/g ICE vehicle. That’s what is stupid about the entire thing. there is a super obvious vendetta and it isn’t to supplement the tax system. How many people put 20k miles on their vehicle a year? I know I’m on the lower end, but I barely got 3k miles over the last 2 years because my car doesn’t have to leave my house much. Back when I had to commute 30 minutes 5 days a week for work, I would do maybe 10k per year. The 24m/g is a the low end as well. Most consumer ICE vehicles are even more fuel efficient than that, with the US national average according to the EPA being 27.1 miles per gallon across all manufacturers in 2023 and that raising to 28.1 by 2025. With the national annual mileage average being at 13,474 miles (per the federal highway administration). Why should an EV be forced to pay a flat rate that is the equivalent of 22,907.6 miles for an ICE vehicle(assuming national averages). That’s nearly double the price of it’s ice counterpart which doesn’t use a flat rate. If they were serious about this supplementing the system, it would be based off mileage, since all vehicles require yearly registration with mileage anyway. In my eyes this is clearly intended to push people away from EV’s.