Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

which will lower the costs of those vehicles in the long term.

Sorry, I'm laughing too hard at this part...


*whew* Ok - yes, the rest of your post I agree with - almost.  The main problem with high fuel taxes in the short run is that they are insanely regressive in the US.  We have a very interconnected system where our current infrastructure mans that if you can't afford the price of an electric vehicle (which is high compared to ICE vehicles) you are stuck, and because fuel costs more it will be even more difficult to save for an electric.

Regarding the part about "bringing down the cost of those vehicles" - we are well beyond the point in history where technological advancements are going to result in lower prices for vehicles.  Due to the massive barriers to entry to vehicle development, vehicle prices are just going to increase, not decrease.  We're also going to likely end up with a new three-letter agency (or new authority for the NTSB or something) to deal with autonomous vehicles; those vehicles are going to start costing the same as light aircraft at best. We're going to be forced to ride-share; the majority of the public is not going to be able to afford private ownership of autonomous vehicles.

So we can't just hike gasoline taxes - we need to start restructuring the entire system.  It's this lack of systems thinking that bugs me most about politics... the interactions between various "solutions" often have massive emergent results of questionable merit.

(Sluissa - for some reason I have this image now of you with uncontrollably shaking hands, preventing you from running for office... )

I agree that we won't see vehicles as a whole fall under what current ICE vehicles are going for. But your middle and lower class people who want a car don't typically go out looking for a new car. They're looking at the used market. If you inject a bunch of new EV cars into the market, even at prices the average person might not be willing to pay, in 3-5 years you're going to have a nice market of less expensive used vehicles, as well as a nice, developed set of mechanics who can repair those vehicles for less than the dealers ask. You can see examples even today. I can go out and get a decent condition used Nissan Leaf for under $10k. Even if you factor in a $3-8k battery replacement, that's still well below the $30-40k they're asking for them new. Increase that market and you'll just see more variety with some examples in worse condition pushed even lower.

Now am I expecting to see $500-$1000 beater EVs for sale by owner on the side of the road any time soon? Probably not. Eventually, maybe, but far enough out that it will leave some people in a bind because that's what some people depend on. The ability to go get a cheap car and drive it into the ground and then go get another one. I'm well aware that some people simply can't save up for much more than that. But I'm also not suggesting an overnight gas tax increase of any substantial amount either. Maybe 1% a year to start with. I would say adjust it depending on how the market handles it, but government isn't good about responding that quickly. You need set those numbers at the beginning, make them big enough to make a difference, but small enough that people aren't tempted to just rip the whole thing apart. Ease people into it. It's much easier to accept that things will be a little more expensive next year than they were last year. For most things that's just natural. It's weird that we've had gasoline fluctuate so much over the last couple of decades.

[Reelya]

Bunch of US states' gas tax increases take effect this month.  Good for hydrocarbon use, perhaps, but how the heck are we going to fund roads when we accelerate the reduction in fuel use?

I'm not a fan of odometer monitoring equipment, nor am I fan of a tax that will inevitably added to electricity in general.

Fun.

It's not guaranteed that the tax increase will lower total revenue. Very low or very high taxes will have low revenue, and somewhere in the middle is the optimal value that maximizes revenue. The current pricing structure could be on either side of that.

One solution here is to replace the gas tax with a carbon tax, instead of an electricity tax. However, a broader tax base is needed to pay for infrastructure. One problem is that the direct user of a service isn't always the only beneficiary. For example, a business might indirectly benefit from public transport/roads due to being able to be accessed by customers, but also by being able to attract minimum-wage workers more easily. Without those transport subsidies, workers might not be able to afford to travel to that workplace, and many customers might not be able to afford to travel to that location either. Therefore, companies should pay something for the infrastructure that allows their customers and employees to get to and from their business, the costs shouldn't all be lumped on the "user" of the infrastructure.

[McTraveller]

One problem is that the direct user of a service isn't always the only beneficiary. For example, a business might indirectly benefit from public transport/roads due to being able to be accessed by customers, but also by being able to attract minimum-wage workers more easily.... the costs shouldn't all be lumped on the "user" of the infrastructure.

I personally think transport infrastructure should be at least partially funded by property taxes exactly for that reason.  Ease of access significantly impacts property values, so there is a natural relationship there. It is also highly immune to technology changes like combustion engines changing to electric.

I'd also try to scale the infrastructure tax portion attributable to the vehicles themselves to more directly reflect cost to infrastructure - road damage goes with the fourth power of vehicle weight, not linearly like fuel consumption.  So heavy trucks do pay more in fuel, and so more in fuel taxes, but not nearly in proportion to the damage they deliver* to roads.

*Yes, that was intentional. 

[Naturegirl1999]

One problem is that the direct user of a service isn't always the only beneficiary. For example, a business might indirectly benefit from public transport/roads due to being able to be accessed by customers, but also by being able to attract minimum-wage workers more easily.... the costs shouldn't all be lumped on the "user" of the infrastructure.

I personally think transport infrastructure should be at least partially funded by property taxes exactly for that reason.  Ease of access significantly impacts property values, so there is a natural relationship there. It is also highly immune to technology changes like combustion engines changing to electric.

I'd also try to scale the infrastructure tax portion attributable to the vehicles themselves to more directly reflect cost to infrastructure - road damage goes with the fourth power of vehicle weight, not linearly like fuel consumption.  So heavy trucks do pay more in fuel, and so more in fuel taxes, but not nearly in proportion to the damage they deliver* to roads.

*Yes, that was intentional. 

Interesting proposal, this would incentivize people getting smaller vehicles, which use less fuel and (theoretically) are cheaper anyway due to less materials being required to construct them. Correct me if I’m wrong, I am not a car manufacturer

[Frumple]

Eh, as far as I'm aware the production costs for most vehicles is only tangentially related to its selling price. The parts and labor for most vehicles is a fairly small fraction of what people pay for a new one, so fluctuations on that front doesn't necessarily translate to a higher or lower floor price. S'kinda' like how insulin is fucking cheap to produce but the markups on it in the US market are basically heinously unethical, if currently legal. Though iirc car manufacturers don't gouge quite that hard.

[Naturegirl1999]

Eh, as far as I'm aware the production costs for most vehicles is only tangentially related to its selling price. The parts and labor for most vehicles is a fairly small fraction of what people pay for a new one, so fluctuations on that front doesn't necessarily translate to a higher or lower floor price. S'kinda' like how insulin is fucking cheap to produce but the markups on it in the US market are basically heinously unethical, if currently legal. Though iirc car manufacturers don't gouge quite that hard.

And here I thought life saving medicines would be affordable. Never u derestimate himan greed...

[sluissa]

Eh, as far as I'm aware the production costs for most vehicles is only tangentially related to its selling price. The parts and labor for most vehicles is a fairly small fraction of what people pay for a new one, so fluctuations on that front doesn't necessarily translate to a higher or lower floor price. S'kinda' like how insulin is fucking cheap to produce but the markups on it in the US market are basically heinously unethical, if currently legal. Though iirc car manufacturers don't gouge quite that hard.

https://carfromjapan.com/article/industry-knowledge/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-car/

This quotes a 2012 study saying that materials costs are 57% of a car's cost. Another 16% is R&D costs. After that you have advertising costs of about 1k per unit, dealer markup, which on this page is averaged at 1.5k but other sources suggest between 2-5% on a new car.

IF those numbers are right, manufacturers probably make a 15-25% margin on individual cars. Although I'd guess that vary a bit depending on if it were a luxury model(higher profit margin), or a minimally built economy car(lower margin).

They definitely make a profit, but still nowhere near the realm of pharma markup.

[Naturegirl1999]

I’m confused why people want bigger vehicles, they use a lot more fuel, and are more expensive. If my visual impairment didn’t keep me from driving, I would get a small car. At least I have a bike, so hopefully I can live near wherever I work

[Frumple]

[snip]

Huh, that's not as bad as I was remembering. Seemed to recall like 2-5k production costs on cars selling for 10-20k+. If that average is representative of what's being inflicted on the median/lower end drivers, it's... not good, exactly, but as you say not nearly pharma bad.

I’m confused why people want bigger vehicles, they use a lot more fuel, and are more expensive. If my visual impairment didn’t keep me from driving, I would get a small car. At least I have a bike, so hopefully I can live near wherever I work

I mean, let's be honest, most of it's jonesing. Keeping up with/one upping the proverbial neighbors. The wastage and price are a feature in that sense, not a bug. Same with the inconvenience-for-self/nuisance-you-inflict-on-others caused by trying to get around in a larger vehicle.

That said, I've had the discussion with folks occasionally 'cause I loathe driving large vehicles and much of my family (which I occasionally drive around these days) loves them. Iirc I've most had stability (less likely to tip over) cited at me, followed by transport space (which is relevant if you need your vehicle to move stuff or many people regularly, but not so much for most folks), towing capability, and field of view (being higher up, though that doesn't apply with wide-but-short cars) as a distant fourth.

Note that none of the people involve drive hard enough flipping is a legitimate issue, could get by with smaller vehicles and still generally have plenty of transit space, and don't tow stuff around much or at all these days (plus there's a reason I drive them around and being higher up doesn't help their eyes being shit), so... yeah. Press X for doubt. The reasons are more excuses than reasons, heh. Post-facto justification rather than motivational observations.

[Naturegirl1999]

That’s odd, why do people think spending money to spend it is good? Save money for things needed sounds like a better long term strategy

[sluissa]

I’m confused why people want bigger vehicles, they use a lot more fuel, and are more expensive. If my visual impairment didn’t keep me from driving, I would get a small car. At least I have a bike, so hopefully I can live near wherever I work

Everyone has their own reasons. Some people feel safer in a bigger car, feel they can see around traffic better. Some people it's an ego thing. Some actually do need the space to carry people/things around. Some people just enjoy driving certain types of cars.

I fully admit, growing up, I loved driving the family's Ford pickup, even if I didn't necessarily have something to carry. It felt good to drive something that heavy compared to the little compact I normally drove to school. I still love driving bigger things than normal sedan cars. But there's a different sort of enjoyment to driving the super small ones as well. Not to mention the ability to find a place to park almost anywhere. But that's just me... and I love driving either way.

[Zangi]

That’s odd, why do people think spending money to spend it is good? Save money for things needed sounds like a better long term strategy

Eh, for the economy, people not spending money is a bad thing.  The spicecash must flow for a healthy economy. 
As long as enough money exchanges hands, the economy stays healthy, but cut off too much of the circulation and it'll slowly die as it continually loses organs as all its pieces also tighten their purse strings and/or stop being able to contribute / begin to leach.

At least that is my take on it.

[Naturegirl1999]

That’s odd, why do people think spending money to spend it is good? Save money for things needed sounds like a better long term strategy

Eh, for the economy, people not spending money is a bad thing.  The spicecash must flow for a healthy economy. 
As long as enough money exchanges hands, the economy stays healthy, but cut off too much of the circulation and it'll slowly die as it continually loses organs as all its pieces also tighten their purse strings and/or stop being able to contribute / begin to leach.

At least that is my take on it.

I understand people need to spend money, but people needn’t spend it on useless items

[Kagus]

That’s odd, why do people think spending money to spend it is good? Save money for things needed sounds like a better long term strategy

Eh, for the economy, people not spending money is a bad thing.  The spicecash must flow for a healthy economy. 
As long as enough money exchanges hands, the economy stays healthy, but cut off too much of the circulation and it'll slowly die as it continually loses organs as all its pieces also tighten their purse strings and/or stop being able to contribute / begin to leach.

At least that is my take on it.

I understand people need to spend money, but people needn’t spend it on useless items

Which is why we're hard at work inventing uses for them.

Duh.

[PTTG??]

When you could be bankrupted by a random medical issue at any moment, or when you have a bottomless pit of debt to fill in, spending money to keep the economy floating isn't exactly a top priority.