Wisconsin EV tax rears its head again

[oil pan 4]

Just register your EV as a plug in.
Stoopid taxes.

[redpoint5]

If you haven't noticed, red and blue are both looking the same shade of brown these days.

I've argued this before, but collecting any necessary infrastructure fees from gas, electric or any other means is ludicrous. Just budget for it in regular income or sales taxes like most everything else is budgeted for. That solves the problem of having to track miles, gallons, number of wheels, etc. It's future proof.

Anyhow, I suggest you register vehicles where it's most advantageous for you to do so, and that's all I'll say regarding this.

[bluesight]

This may seem counterintuitive, but "traditional" hybrid owners should raise a holy stink that they are being lumped in with plug-ins and EVs. While this appears to play in to the hands of folks that like to divide and conquer, like the WI governor and majority legislators, the only way to implement this punitive tax is to require the larger pool of traditionals to be lumped in with the minuscule number of EVs and plug-ins. If only EVs and plug-ins are in the pool, the punishment would be so severe that even the sleeping general public would take notice. Here's an argument that I made to my local rag as to why traditional hybrids should not be punished:
---
My 2003 Honda Insight hybrid (3cyl, 1L) averages 50MPG. A NON-hybrid Ford Fiesta SFE (3cyl, 1L) averages 35MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the Fiesta will use 286 gallons and the Insight, 200 gallons. The Fiesta owner will pay $88 in WI gas tax (at $0.309/gal), and, for the Insight, instead of paying "little to nothing", I'll pay $62. Seems like I avoided all of $26 in gas tax. But consider the owner of a new-technology, aluminum F150 pickup that averages 17MPG compared to the old-technology, non-aluminum F150 averaging 14MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the non-aluminum F150 will use 714 gallons, and the aluminum, 588 gallons. WI gas taxes for the non-aluminum version will be $221, and $182 for the aluminum, allowing the aluminum version owner to avoid $39 of gas tax. This is obvious, simple math. But under the hybrid tax legislation, I will be charged a $75 penalty for not paying my $26 "fair share", while F150 owners, and there are a lot of them, will be charged nothing for avoiding $39. Singling out hybrid technology by name for punitive taxation is legislatively picking winners and losers, as much as it would be to have a special tax for aluminum bodied vehicles. It is indefensible, unfair, and, eventually, unworkable.
---

And to a local pundit that wrote an article lumping all hybrids together:
---
It's easy to do the research, whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories. See: Flurry of State Bills Introduced, Likely Backed by Oil Industry, to Penalize Electric Car Drivers | Sierra Club and related links in the article. If you believe in the conspiracy, the ALEC/Koch target would be suppression of purchases of plug-in hybrids and EVs. In any case, traditional hybrids are "collateral damage" because there are not yet enough plug-ins and EVs to make an argument to the public for collecting useful fractions of tax dollars. Constantly repeating the kinds of talking points you and David Prosser used provides the echo chamber for the what can be characterized as "fake news", that traditional hybrids are the same as plug-ins and EVs in paying "little to nothing in state gas taxes".
---
The talking point that is repeated in the echo chamber goes like this quote from David Prosser's column:

"Many people see plug-in hybrid cars and pure EVs as the wave of the future. Federal tax credits have been authorized to encourage EV purchases. The inevitable consequence is a decline in gas tax revenues. These revenues must be replaced because EVs and hybrids use the same highways as everyone else."
---
You notice he starts by singling out EVs and plug-ins for not paying their fair share, then conveniently eliminates the distinction with traditionals by lumping all in the term "hybrids" which becomes the target for the taxing legislation.

There may not be much our community can do to stop this in states that are leaning toward or are already punishing efficiency. But it can't hurt to make a stink!

B

[rmay635703]

This bill is getting rewritten back into the Prius Tax that was veto'd before.

Hopefully enough people get mad to backlash this thing out of existence.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by bluesight

My 2003 Honda Insight hybrid (3cyl, 1L) averages 50MPG. A NON-hybrid Ford Fiesta SFE (3cyl, 1L) averages 35MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the Fiesta will use 286 gallons and the Insight, 200 gallons. The Fiesta owner will pay $88 in WI gas tax (at $0.309/gal), and, for the Insight, instead of paying "little to nothing", I'll pay $62. Seems like I avoided all of $26 in gas tax. But consider the owner of a new-technology, aluminum F150 pickup that averages 17MPG compared to the old-technology, non-aluminum F150 averaging 14MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the non-aluminum F150 will use 714 gallons, and the aluminum, 588 gallons. WI gas taxes for the non-aluminum version will be $221, and $182 for the aluminum, allowing the aluminum version owner to avoid $39 of gas tax. This is obvious, simple math. But under the hybrid tax legislation, I will be charged a $75 penalty for not paying my $26 "fair share", while F150 owners, and there are a lot of them, will be charged nothing for avoiding $39. Singling out hybrid technology by name for punitive taxation is legislatively picking winners and losers, as much as it would be to have a special tax for aluminum bodied vehicles. It is indefensible, unfair, and, eventually, unworkable.

Even though hybrids are not my cup of tea, your observations make sense. And we should also look at the environmental advantages of extending the operational life of the early Insight instead of all the energy expense involved in the manufacturing of a newer car that would in the end get worse mileage.

[bluesight]

I'm not a PR person, but it's sure as heck that the talking points associated with anti EV model legislation were carefully crafted for greatest impact with the less-informed public. The clearest ones are "fair share" (as in not paying), and "little to nothing in gas taxes". Another often used is "common sense", though, surprisingly, that hasn't been applied in this case. When repeated often enough, those "bites" become the fake news "truth".

If you or someone you know is great at PR, our community needs help in creating pithy, contrary talking points that are easy to repeat as counters to these misrepresentations. Mine would be too techy, like "traditional hybrids are on the continuum of efficiency". Hopefully, something way better is out there...

B

PS...Here's the deal...the talking points to support this nasty model legislation are actually insults to the targets posing as quantitative facts. Alt fuel users are cheapskates...paying "little to nothing" in gas taxes, whatever little to nothing might mean. And second-rate citizens...not paying their "fair share", whatever fair share might mean. And, in the case of "common sense", they don't have any, whatever that is anyway. It's hard to fight these since facts cannot counter the emotions elicited in the less-informed public...those corrupt alt fuel users are just making excuses. Attacking the creators of the talking points with similar insults is probably a no win, though characterizing them as lying scum might work...

[Fat Charlie]

Yep. More useless culture war masquerading as governance. Hippies are skating on their responsibilities, leaving real Murricans holding the bag.

It's not about taxing (or fee-ing) appropriately, it's about straw men and tribal identification... and getting people to vote for frivolous things while ignoring real issues.

[rmay635703]

Hmm per another state law perhaps ev tax is illegal and violates the state constitution.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/78.pdf

Anyone willing to sue since electricity is an alternative fuel
-------------------------
Your alternative fuel is safe from certain taxes. According to Wisconsin Statutes 78.82, counties, cities, towns, villages, and other subdivisions cannot charge any of the following taxes on purchasing, selling, handling, or consuming alternative fuels:
Excise.
License.
Privilege.
Occupational.

[bluesight]

This is a "lying scum" commentary I was able to come up with. So far, a slightly more moderate version has not been accepted for letter to the editor in the local rag:

The Kochs' and ALEC's fairy tale and why facts don't matter: Those alt-energy "liberals" are foisting commie hybrids and EVs on us. You've heard they're going to be coming from China soon, right? Unlike real Americans, these slackers won't pay their "fair share", and in fact "pay little to nothing" toward keeping the potholes fixed and America strong. It just makes "common sense" to stick it to 'em. Make 'em pay!

If you care to, please put your own spin on, or use it as you wish. Attribution-free is OK...

B

[rmay635703]

https://www.wpr.org/walker-signs-sol...-3-months-late

Tax has passed, with wheel tax my registration fee is actually more expensive than the electric + fuel I burn.

What a triumph