Also which state has chronically high gasoline prices, and the highest gas taxes. They're basically taking money from ICE drivers and transferring it to EV drivers (indirectly).
The State of Charging on a Gravity Road Trip
- Thread starter hmp10
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2025
- Messages
- 792
- Reaction score
- 1,235
- Cars
- Model X, XC90, S4, LS460
- Air DE Number
- 1
- Gravity DE Number
- 160
- Referral Code
- 34DTL9L0
This is true, as the gas taxes are used to fund transportation infrastructure and EV drivers are no longer paying those gas taxes. There are various proposals to remedy this situation, but they haven’t passed, yet.
These California policies (and other green-friendly states’ policies) have resulted in more efficient ICE vehicles, less pollution, and less greenhouse gas emissions, not only for CA and those green-friendly states, but for the nation as a whole. In some sense, the high taxes we paid as Californians subsidized the benefits the rest of the US is currently enjoying. Just look at the pollution levels from the 1970’s vs. today, where cities were covered in dense smog back in the 1970’s.
This is why we form a government. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” We pool resources (taxes) and expect our elected officials to make decisions to benefit all of us. We hate taxes, hate wasteful spending, and may disagree on priorities, but let’s not forget that we should all work together for our common greater good. For any tax/policy, ask yourself - who is benefiting from those policies? “Follow the money.” Where is the money going and what benefit does it provide for the people?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2021
- Messages
- 16,056
- Reaction score
- 22,070
- Location
- Cupertino, CA
- Cars
- Air DE-P, Gravity DE
- Air DE Number
- 241
- Gravity DE Number
- 013
- Referral Code
- Q1BTN5Y3
This is not true. EV drivers in CA pay a $121 annual registration fee to compensate for the state fuel tax, with adjustments set by the legislature.
This is not a thing, and gas drivers are not subsidizing EV drivers, despite gas drivers very much liking to say they are.
The rest of your post is spot on.
$200 a year in the Lone Star State to compensate for the fuel tax!!
Thus why I said "indirectly". Any policy that uses tax dollars (as CA does with point-of-sale rebates for only EVs) to subsidize one version of a product but not the other version(s) means that some of the tax dollars paid by the unsubsidized buyer are flowing to the subsidized buyer (indirectly).
That doesn't mean that's the only inequitable policy by government, of course. There's tons of them. Although it is somewhat rare to single out just a particular version of a product (EVs among all automobiles in this case) for such a large subsidy.
We stopped driving gas over a year ago, BTW. 2 EVs, no ICE anymore. EVs are a good fit for us because we have a house for the easy ability to add home charging. But that doesn't make me pro-EV and anti-ICE. I'm pro-consumer choice. And not a fan of govt manipulating buyers with inequitable treatment.
$250 in New Jersey
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2025
- Messages
- 792
- Reaction score
- 1,235
- Cars
- Model X, XC90, S4, LS460
- Air DE Number
- 1
- Gravity DE Number
- 160
- Referral Code
- 34DTL9L0
I’m pro EV, not anti-ICE (we still need ICE vehicles), and pro-consumer choice. We are being manipulated everywhere, by the government and big business. It’s actually what government is for - collectively agree that something will benefit us all but for which we can’t individually accomplish. The sewage and interstate road systems are good examples. I don’t want to go back to latrines where I dig my own hole.
Europe and China have essentially agreed that EV’s are the future, are pooling resources through tax breaks and other subsidies, and are building out their EV infrastructure. While we are excited that we get EV stations in areas where we previously had none, or upgrade from 250 kW to 400 kW, Norway is leading the world where EV charging stations are as common as gas stations. It’s not a forced transition - it’s what the people want as they have realized that going EV is better in the long run.
Meanwhile, we (USA) divert our pooled resources from EV/electric/green energy back to oil. People view EV’s as a threat. I’m sure the Latrine workers were against sewage modernization (maybe not - that really was a crappy job
).
Last edited:
We're not "diverting our resources back to oil", we just STOPPED using tax resources to subsidize EVs (federally, at least). Buying an EV is just like buying a gas car now. As it should be.I’m pro EV, not anti-ICE (we still need ICE vehicles), and pro-consumer choice. We are being manipulated everywhere, by the government and big business. It’s actually what government is for - collectively agree that something will benefit us all but for which we can’t individually accomplish. The sewage and interstate road systems are good examples. I don’t want to go back to latrines where I dig my own hole.
Europe and China have essentially agreed that EV’s are the future, are pooling resources through tax breaks and other subsidies, and are building out their EV infrastructure. While we are excited that we get EV stations in areas where we previously had none, or upgrade from 250 kW to 400 kW, Norway is leading the world where EV charging stations are as common as gas stations. It’s not a forced transition - it’s what the people want as they have realized that going EV is better in the long run.
Meanwhile, we (USA) divert our pooled resources from EV/electric/green energy back to oil. People view EV’s as a threat. I’m sure the Latrine workers were against sewage modernization (maybe not - that really was a crappy job
Infrastructure is very different than individuals choosing which car to buy with their own money. Yes, government often has to build/support shared infrastructure, because it's not something individuals can practically just go out and buy on their own. Like they can a car.
The oil and gas industries receive subsidies for, among other things;
Intangible drilling costs
Percentage depletion allowance
Foreign tax credits
The only meaningful difference is that the subsidy benefits an industry vs individual consumers. And EV subsidies were a pittance of what has, and continues to be, afforded to the oil and gas industry. And consider the added cost we’re incurring to keep oil flowing right now. Because subsidies don’t come any bigger than that.
That's not singling one version of a product like I was talking about (EVs out of the entire automobile market), so it doesn't really apply to my comment.
I think you’re splitting hairs a bit. EV subsidies existed to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy alternatives which have a net benefit to society. No different than subsidies for wind and solar adoption. It extended to cars given their impact. We tariff or subsidize other products solely on the basis of where they’re made.
And there is precedent in singling out one version of a vehicle over another based solely on its energy impact. See the gas guzzler tax.
Oh I didn't say we didn't have some bad and unfair policies. We do. Quite a few of them, sadly. We could fill a book. (BTW, we could also compare energy subsidies on a percentage basis (the only way to compare things of vastly different volumes) to show the degree of subsidy is actually the opposite, since you went there.) But that's way beyond a thread in a car forum that frankly I'm surprised hasn't already been pulled.
My point was just what I said -- it's somewhat rare to single out just a particular version of a product (EVs among all automobiles in this case) for such a large subsidy. That's it.
Have a good day.
My point was just what I said -- it's somewhat rare to single out just a particular version of a product (EVs among all automobiles in this case) for such a large subsidy. That's it.
Have a good day.