And here I have to pay more to register my hybrid.
Same for my EV (double the hybrid registration cost in my state). However, that’s because of how road taxes are collected on the sale of gasoline/diesel fuel. Its still overpaying on EV taxes though. For the same registration fee I pay on an EV ($200/year) I could drive over 15,000 miles on a gasoline car getting 30 miles to the gallon. I drive maybe 11,000/year so I’m overly taxed compared to ICE drivers.
Sure, one action can have multiple reasons and outcomes. I agree with it in part that I need to pay my fair share of road taxes. I also recognize that this is a relatively new market force, and highly accurate consumption-to-taxation isn’t in place yet (again, for many reasons).
More money is, of course, nice for them. But that doesn’t mean it’s their main reason. We can ascribe all sorts of benevolent reasoning to politicians, but reality often disagrees.
It’s a regressive policy made as a reaction, and not an action, and thus inherently destructive.
Err, clearly an action. A reaction IS an action by definition.
and thus inherently destructive.
Point of order, counselor. Conclusion not supported by the facts. If you apply your same logic ( and conclusions) to the COVID lockdowns, then your conclusion would be those were unnecessarily destructive.
And here I have to pay more to register my hybrid.
Same for my EV (double the hybrid registration cost in my state). However, that’s because of how road taxes are collected on the sale of gasoline/diesel fuel. Its still overpaying on EV taxes though. For the same registration fee I pay on an EV ($200/year) I could drive over 15,000 miles on a gasoline car getting 30 miles to the gallon. I drive maybe 11,000/year so I’m overly taxed compared to ICE drivers.
That’s the excuse they give, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s why they do it, though.
Sure, one action can have multiple reasons and outcomes. I agree with it in part that I need to pay my fair share of road taxes. I also recognize that this is a relatively new market force, and highly accurate consumption-to-taxation isn’t in place yet (again, for many reasons).
Its not the only reason they do it.
More money is, of course, nice for them. But that doesn’t mean it’s their main reason. We can ascribe all sorts of benevolent reasoning to politicians, but reality often disagrees.
It’s a regressive policy made as a reaction, and not an action, and thus inherently destructive.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Err, clearly an action. A reaction IS an action by definition.
Point of order, counselor. Conclusion not supported by the facts. If you apply your same logic ( and conclusions) to the COVID lockdowns, then your conclusion would be those were unnecessarily destructive.