$1,000 yearly EV registration fee?

[ntmatter]

I'm mostly with you - I wouldn't mind paying a road tax, whether it's fixed or by some weight-weighted )), equitable (?) formula. Presumably the incessant heavy construction traffic also pays its fair share, as do the utilities who keep carving up roads and leaving behind half-assed repairs.

But that's not where my disagreement lies - my 285-section rear tires did not like being called "pizza cutters", and would like an apology.

(j/k <- hopefully redundant)

All good, I was careful to cover myself by saying "most EV's". For additional context, my other vehicle is a Marine Corps HMMWV that has "Feed me a Prius" stenclled on the back, so was mainly meaning those!

Sponsored

 

[ntmatter]

No contest with 90+% of your post, but you should clarify that the exorbitant registration fee in your case is address-specific, and not state-wide. The Regional Transit Authority is collecting this excise tax in urban areas of the counties within the Sound Transit District. There are no exemptions for EVs because they, too, are "traffic" - the combatting of which is what the tax is meant for. FWIW, my registration fee is an order of magnitude less, as I live outside the RTA zone.

Secondly, it is literally littered with Teslas and other EVs around here (meaning Eastside); a subsidy or tax breaks for EVs at this point in this area would be a very bad look/poor use of taxpayer money.

Note I'm not disagreeing with the machinations of politicians; best we can do is being informed voters. Best they can do is to remember there is always a breaking point.

And oh yes, I'm totally with you on the RTA tax - it's completely nuts. I live in Gig Harbor so am not getting hosed by that but it just seems ridiculous to add that kind of annual charge just because you live in a city 30 miles from Seattle that wants a light rail line when there's already heavy rail and bus transit.

And, it seems to me that it's not right to charge $1000 a year to install transit that's basically only going to be used to allow homeless people to commute up to Seattle, and then also charge $200 per year in road tax. But then again, it's Washington State, where no tax is too high.

 

[whitex]

No contest with 90+% of your post, but you should clarify that the exorbitant registration fee in your case is address-specific, and not state-wide. The Regional Transit Authority is collecting this excise tax in urban areas of the counties within the Sound Transit District. There are no exemptions for EVs because they, too, are "traffic" - the combatting of which is what the tax is meant for. FWIW, my registration fee is an order of magnitude less, as I live outside the RTA zone.

That is what I said, a "1.x % tax for public transit". Good clarification though, it is not state wide. It should also be noted that all cars are included in that tax, just that EV's tend to have higher MSRP (on which the tax is based on), which means they pay proportionally more. What that money is going towards though, I haven't checked lately, but when they voted it in, it was for some vague targets in 20+ years. Our politicians learned from a similar tax in Seattle where they actually promised tangible public transit results only a few years later, then the deadline came and nothing was done other than they bought some land. Taxpayers wanted money back, lucky for the government the land had appreciated, so the government came out ahead. This time however they specified 20+ years and no specific deliverables, so that in 20 years, if anyone even remembers to ask, the people in government will be able to say "We use it for general government spending today. I don't know what money was supposed to be for, as this was way before my time in government - go ask the retired politicians".

Secondly, it is literally littered with Teslas and other EVs around here (meaning Eastside); a subsidy or tax breaks for EVs at this point in this area would be a very bad look/poor use of taxpayer money.

Hmmm.... Are you saying it wood be a good use of taxpayers money, but only if anyone living on the Eastside was excluded, or perhaps anyone who ever bought an EV should be excluded (one EV incentive per person or family per lifetime)? Wouldn't people on the Eastside buying new EV's create a larger supply of used EV's, creating a more affordable EV market for people not living on the Eastside?

Or, is your argument that WA state has enough (or too many) EV's already, creating a road wear problem, but being one of the cleanest air states we don't really have a pollution problem, so why incentivize making the bigger problem worse? Or is it that incentives wound be mostly ineffective at this point, i.e. anyone who was going to buy an EV will anyways, and those were aren't, will not buy an EV with or without incentives? Or maybe another reason why it EV incentives would be not be good for WA state taxpayers?

Note I'm not disagreeing with the machinations of politicians; best we can do is being informed voters. Best they can do is to remember there is always a breaking point.

Yea, I would prefer honest and rational politicians, but such politicians will never get elected. The best I figure we can ever hope for is politicians which make educating the populous their priority, which would over time result in better politicians being elected, but chances of that as almost as slim, since education is a long term project no politician will ever take on because by the time there are any results for which they can take credit for, they will be long gone, but will get all the blame/hate up front for the costs to get there (and in all likelyhood some new yahoo will get elected to undo the changes before they yield any results). *sigh*

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

That is what I said, a "1.x % tax for public transit". [...] What that money is going towards though, I haven't checked lately, but when they voted it in, it was for some vague targets in 20+ years. [...] This time however they specified 20+ years and no specific deliverables[...]

I was going to leave this thread alone but, as I drove home tonight on 520E, I noticed they laid the rails on the last section towards Redmond. The rail into Bellevue has been laid a long time ago, and various intermediary stops along the route seemed to have been completed as well - the Overlake transit center, the one before that etc. That is, it sounds like by 2025 there will be a running, light rail mass transit system linking Seattle with Redmond and everything in between. Chalk one up for public transit?

Hmmm.... Are you saying it wood be a good use of taxpayers money, but only if anyone living on the Eastside was excluded, or perhaps anyone who ever bought an EV should be excluded (one EV incentive per person or family per lifetime)? Wouldn't people on the Eastside buying new EV's create a larger supply of used EV's, creating a more affordable EV market for people not living on the Eastside?

Or, is your argument that WA state has enough (or too many) EV's already, creating a road wear problem, but being one of the cleanest air states we don't really have a pollution problem, so why incentivize making the bigger problem worse? Or is it that incentives wound be mostly ineffective at this point, i.e. anyone who was going to buy an EV will anyways, and those were aren't, will not buy an EV with or without incentives? Or maybe another reason why it EV incentives would be not be good for WA state taxpayers?

I got a bit lost in all those decision blocks ;-) but yes, the point is that this county (if not the entire state) seems to display a healthy adoption of EVs without any state level incentives on top of the existing federal ones. On the other side, the roads are a complete shitshow - and those do get repaired from state or local budgets. It's just a simple statement without any attributions or insinuations - I'm paying a lot of taxes (property + sales), and I'd much prefer they spend those funds for the proverbial greater good rather than return some of it to me (or others like me).

 

[whitex]

I was going to leave this thread alone but, as I drove home tonight on 520E, I noticed they laid the rails on the last section towards Redmond. The rail into Bellevue has been laid a long time ago, and various intermediary stops along the route seemed to have been completed as well - the Overlake transit center, the one before that etc. That is, it sounds like by 2025 there will be a running, light rail mass transit system linking Seattle with Redmond and everything in between. Chalk one up for public transit?

I live in Everett, so I'm not sure if that is what my taxes are paying for (and if they are, it's useless to anyone living where I do - Redmond is about as far from me as Seattle, a link between them is not even going to ease congestion around here). But my main point was, is there a concrete set of deliverables for those taxes, or just some hand wavy "look we laid down some track extension a few years later, so the 5x tax increase was put to good use"? I'm looking for accountability for the money they take, that's all. I'm ok with paying taxes if there are concrete needs and deliverables.

PS> I've lived in cities with functional public transit - greater Toronto, Boston, and San Francisco areas. The greater Seattle area is nowhere near that level of public transit usability, IMO, and that is comparing today in Seattle vs. decades ago in the other places.

I got a bit lost in all those decision blocks ;-) but yes, the point is that this county (if not the entire state) seems to display a healthy adoption of EVs without any state level incentives on top of the existing federal ones. On the other side, the roads are a complete shitshow - and those do get repaired from state or local budgets. It's just a simple statement without any attributions or insinuations - I'm paying a lot of taxes (property + sales), and I'd much prefer they spend those funds for the proverbial greater good rather than return some of it to me (or others like me).

Ok, if I read you correctly, you are saying it's not worth spending any taxpayer money to incentivize any more EV's - the market will take care of what we need in terms of EV adoption. I can totally respect that option, even if I don't quite agree with it - I think incentivizing EV adoption would help us get more EV's sooner, but perhaps we don't need them sooner (or even are not ready for it), so we should cancel all EV incentives then. Why only cancel the incentives for cars made in factories made by a factory without an American union contracts. And yes, I know they managed to get Tesla into the incentive, but it took a lot of political maneuvering to get the Biden administration to remove the union stipulation in lieu of just being assembled on American soil.

As I've mentioned before by the way, I'm all for EV's paying road taxes, or rather all vehicles paying road taxes. If heavier vehicles cause more road wear, tax them more (so yes, same size EV would pay more). However, taxes spending should have a transparency - how much do we need for what deliverables. I agree with you that our roads are some of the worst in the country and could use more funding. I think at a country level, our education could use a lot more funding (I'm totally capable of paying for my own kids education, even if it costs more than a Taycan per kid, but I would vote for any damned politician who would make their priority educating the populous in the long term - yes, that would likely include more taxes, which if they come with accountability and transparency, I would vote for). A more educated populous, the better quality democratic decisions, the better the economy, and harder to manipulate the voters. The latter actually worries me a lot lately since the politicians found out about things like ChatGPT. How much do you want to bet there are massive AI projects to come up with best messaging to get people to vote for one party or another? If you think Trump has a following, just wait for the next election AI campaigns.

And now that I've successfully derailed this completely off topic via a series of tangents, I will conclude this post with a response to the original point - I respect your opinion, even if I don't fully agree with it.

 

[snstevens]

No contest with 90+% of your post, but you should clarify that the exorbitant registration fee in your case is address-specific, and not state-wide. The Regional Transit Authority is collecting this excise tax in urban areas of the counties within the Sound Transit District. There are no exemptions for EVs because they, too, are "traffic" - the combatting of which is what the tax is meant for. FWIW, my registration fee is an order of magnitude less, as I live outside the RTA zone.

Secondly, it is literally littered with Teslas and other EVs around here (meaning Eastside); a subsidy or tax breaks for EVs at this point in this area would be a very bad look/poor use of taxpayer money.

Note I'm not disagreeing with the machinations of politicians; best we can do is being informed voters. Best they can do is to remember there is always a breaking point.

Case in point - the latest Car Tabs fee table for my 2021 Taycan 4s in Washington State —

Fee detail: $1,344.25

Hide fee details

Renewal Fee Details

Electric Vehicle Registration Renewal	$150.00
Transportation Electrification	$75.00
Registration License - Renewal	$30.00
Additional Vehicle Weight Fee	$10.00
Vehicle Weight	$45.00
Registration Filing	$4.50
Registration Service Fee	$8.00
License Plate Technology	$0.25
Department of Licensing Service	$0.50
RTA Excise Tax	$1,016.00

The RTA Excise Tax pays for the development of light rail public transportation throughout the Puget Sound area, and it is higher for higher-priced vehicles (ICE or EV).

I personally believe light rail is the way to go, and I hope it will help reduce road congestion, much as “work from home” did. I also agree with other posters that it is unrealistic to think that we can maintain and develop our highways without coming up with alternatives to the Gas Tax.

While I don’t love paying $1,344/year, the license fee for an ICE vehicle of the same value as my Taycan is just $150 less - not a big deal IMO. I plan to stick with the Taycan and love driving it! Hopefully the roads get better AND congestion is reduced in part by light rail alternatives.

 

[ntmatter]

Having ridden light rail a fair big getting around Seattle (work for Amazon) I'm not a fan. It's basically become a mobile homelessness encampment, I've literally seen the homeless take it to SeaTac airport so they could crash there for the night. Smells like whiz or worse and there's a non-trivial chance of having to deal with someone nasty on any given ride. I'm challenged seeing light rail as a win unless they clean it up for the benefit of the people who paid for it, rather than the riders who don't.

 

[kort]

Having ridden light rail a fair big getting around Seattle (work for Amazon) I'm not a fan. It's basically become a mobile homelessness encampment, I've literally seen the homeless take it to SeaTac airport so they could crash there for the night. Smells like whiz or worse and there's a non-trivial chance of having to deal with someone nasty on any given ride. I'm challenged seeing light rail as a win unless they clean it up for the benefit of the people who paid for it, rather than the riders who don't.

that is one of many issues that make public transit not a viable option for many people.
in some very urban settings mass transit can work but when you are traveling at off hours things are not very pleasant or convenient.

 

[whitex]

Case in point - the latest Car Tabs fee table for my 2021 Taycan 4s in Washington State —

Fee detail: $1,344.25

Hide fee details

Renewal Fee Details

Electric Vehicle Registration Renewal	$150.00
Transportation Electrification	$75.00
Registration License - Renewal	$30.00
Additional Vehicle Weight Fee	$10.00
Vehicle Weight	$45.00
Registration Filing	$4.50
Registration Service Fee	$8.00
License Plate Technology	$0.25
Department of Licensing Service	$0.50
RTA Excise Tax	$1,016.00

While I don’t love paying $1,344/year, the license fee for an ICE vehicle of the same value as my Taycan is just $150 less

Actually, a comparable (on size and price) ICE in the RTA tax region would be $245 cheaper, since you would not pay the Transportation Electrification, Additional Weight, and the actual Vehicle Weight would probably be $10 cheaper since similar car would be lighter. I find it interesting that the government charges us per Vehicle Weight (which does not appear fixed, as I looked at my other cars) AND then an "Additional Weight" fee. Perhaps this is to hide more fees from people who don't look at details?

Some more questions come to mind when looking at out annual fee breakout. Beside the separate weight and additional weight fees, why are cars paying for public transit if ICE cars don't pay for Transportation Electrification? I get the reasoning that ICE cars don't use public charging infrastructure (which supposedly this fee covers), so it makes sense they don't pay for electrification, but by the same logic, cars don't use public transportation either, and yet, they forced to pay for it.

The main problem with the RTA tax is that it's attached to cars, follows a completely unrealistic depreciation curve (optimized for maximum tax collection of course, not reflecting actual car value), and that there are no clear deliverables with dates, so they could, if they want to, spend half the money on bonuses or retreats - taxpayers would never know. No transparency nor accountability.

PS> I asked whether or not if the government really believes my car is worth as much as they think it is, can I just give them the car in lieu of tax credit for that amount. I would have given them my old car instead of selling it, use to cover sales tax on my new cars, car registrations, property taxes, other tax liabilities (it would be great if the state would allow me to use it against federal income tax - they could transfer the money they get for my car to the IRS).

Sponsored