NJ DMV registration

Got this in the mail with my registration renewal. 

Road/highway maintenance is funded in large part through taxes placed on gasoline sales. Since zero emission vehicles do not run on gasoline, another mechanism had to be found for drivers of these vehicles to pay their fair share of roadway maintenance costs. The registration/annual renewal fee is a convenient way to do this.

On one hand, the gub'mint gives a tax rebate, credit or whatever when ya buy the car. This is to encourage electric vehicle purchases. Then they tax ya more when ya try to use it.

It's two tax policies, working against each other. 

It's like trying to achieve a goal of reaching a happy ending, while switching hands in the middle, without missing a stroke.

Actually most of the EV credits are phasing out.  We drive two EVs, but I don't mind this.  It's a little steep, because if I assume a gas car at 25 mpg I have to run 16000 miles per year to be even with the fuel tax.  But I don't mind because mainly it takes away the "no road tax" arguments from anti EV people who can't be bothered to think about the massive subsidies oil companies get.  Also, I love the cars and still save tons of money.

Mine is a hybrid  - averages 46 per gallon.     No tax bennies nor tax burden.

joan_crystal said:

Road/highway maintenance is funded in large part through taxes placed on gasoline sales. Since zero emission vehicles do not run on gasoline, another mechanism had to be found for drivers of these vehicles to pay their fair share of roadway maintenance costs. The registration/annual renewal fee is a convenient way to do this.

I have read though that the new extra fee far exceeds what most people paid in gasoline tax before getting an electric. It is an anti-environmental disincentive to go electric, and it appalls me. It is just wrong. Using this logic there should be a sliding scale ... the more gas efficient your car is, the more tax you pay ... how does that make any sense? We should be piling on incentives to buy electric or very high MPG hybrids such as plug-in hybrids. NOT encouraging gas consumption!!

I do not (yet) own an electric car, but when we need a new car we plan for it to be electric. I am stunned that my state seems to not want me to do this.

,

HatsOff said:

I have read though that the new extra fee far exceeds what most people paid in gasoline tax before getting an electric. It is an anti-environmental disincentive to go electric, and it appalls me. It is just wrong. Using this logic there should be a sliding scale ... the more gas efficient your car is, the more tax you pay ... how does that make any sense? We should be piling on incentives to buy electric or very high MPG hybrids such as plug-in hybrids. NOT encouraging gas consumption!!

I do not (yet) own an electric car, but when we need a new car we plan for it to be electric. I am stunned that my state seems to not want me to do this.

,

I still need convincing that today's EVs are more environment-friendly than vehicles running on gasoline.  The problem is the hazardous materials that go into making the batteries, and the difficulty with finding a safe means of disposal or repurposing once the battery needs replacement.  While EVs help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions in the air, this is replaced with other environmental concerns. 

joan_crystal said:

HatsOff said:

I have read though that the new extra fee far exceeds what most people paid in gasoline tax before getting an electric. It is an anti-environmental disincentive to go electric, and it appalls me. It is just wrong. Using this logic there should be a sliding scale ... the more gas efficient your car is, the more tax you pay ... how does that make any sense? We should be piling on incentives to buy electric or very high MPG hybrids such as plug-in hybrids. NOT encouraging gas consumption!!

I do not (yet) own an electric car, but when we need a new car we plan for it to be electric. I am stunned that my state seems to not want me to do this.

,

I still need convincing that today's EVs are more environment-friendly than vehicles running on gasoline.  The problem is the hazardous materials that go into making the batteries, and the difficulty with finding a safe means of disposal or repurposing once the battery needs replacement.  While EVs help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions in the air, this is replaced with other environmental concerns. 

this battery worry is a fallacy.  Today's batteries will outlive the cars they are in.  In addition the batteries can be used in utility scale battery banks after the car wears out.  Beyond that they are 100 percent recyclable.  Several plants have popped up to recycle them and have had problems because they can't get old batteries to recycle.  They are not wearing out.

DanDietrich said:

this battery worry is a fallacy.  Today's batteries will outlive the cars they are in.  In addition the batteries can be used in utility scale battery banks after the car wears out.  Beyond that they are 100 percent recyclable.  Several plants have popped up to recycle them and have had problems because they can't get old batteries to recycle.  They are not wearing out.

Source?  I would love for your above statements to be correct.

To prove my point ---- Today's Ledger: Ya buy an E.V. and if you are an impoverished senior, ya get up to $4k in tax credits. 

Meanwhile, ya still get charged $250 on your annual registration.

https://thedriven.io/2024/09/19/new-study-finds-vast-majority-of-ev-batteries-will-outlast-the-vehicle/

that is one of my sources.  Do you have a source about the difficulty of disposal?

No impoverished senior should buy any new car.  

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

To prove my point ---- Today's Ledger: Ya buy an E.V. and if you are an impoverished senior, ya get up to $4k in tax credits. 

Meanwhile, ya still get charged $250 on your annual registration.

DanDietrich said:

is it the same for green bananas?

Jaytee said:

is it the same for green bananas?

Pretty sure the operative word combination was impoverished and new.

Until electrics are weightless, imo there needs to be a way for the owners to chip in on highway maintenance.  On the plus side, this way is simple; on the minus side, clearly it's a lot more noticeable than paying via gas tax.  

I agree that the registration fee is justified. I am just pointing out that it is two government actions that are operating at cross purposes.

Kinda like affordable housing and flood control. An action in support of one goal, goes against the other.

I don't agree that it is justified. The government should be doing everything it can to encourage EV purchases and discouraging use of gas vehicles. If  the theory is that EV users need to pay for the roads, then I counter that gas vehicle users need to pay for the environmental damage they are doing. To me this extra registration fee is an extremely visible disincentive to EV purchase and I truly think it is shameful.

Okay, I know I'm alone here, but I feel like these EV incentives were in place to get people to adopt a new technology that has limits.  When I bought my first one in 2014 it had a range of 80 miles and there were practically no DC fast chargers available.  It was strictly a commuter car.  But now there is fast charging everywhere, both of my current EVs are excellent cars as well as EVs, and the prices are only a little higher than comparable gas cars.  We are over the hump.  Now people are buying EVs because they are good cars that make sense for them.  I save so much driving them, and so much on maintenance, that I feel like I'm still ahead of the game without incentives.  But I will repeat that the savings are amortized by using the car.  If you don't drive much I don't see case for savings.  I love the fact that my son is in Rochester and I get there in great comfort, driving fast, with only one stop that can be shorter than it usually is.  It takes me longer to hit the head and buy a cup of coffee than it takes my car to get more than enough charge.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

To prove my point ---- Today's Ledger: Ya buy an E.V. and if you are an impoverished senior, ya get up to $4k in tax credits. 

Meanwhile, ya still get charged $250 on your annual registration.

Two different things. The incentives encourage the purchase, the fee makes up for lost gas tax revenues. Perhaps the state could get rid of the gas tax and charge everyone maybe by building it into the income tax, but then we wouldn't get to collect from travelers passing through who buy gas in the state. There are pros and cons to everything.

sac said:

Two different things. The incentives encourage the purchase, the fee makes up for lost gas tax revenues. Perhaps the state could get rid of the gas tax and charge everyone maybe by building it into the income tax, but then we wouldn't get to collect from travelers passing through who buy gas in the state. There are pros and cons to everything.

I am not arguing about the merits of the tax credit or the registration fee. I am trying to point out the inconsistency of the two laws. They are at cross purposes. Choose one or the other. 

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

I am not arguing about the merits of the tax credit or the registration fee. I am trying to point out the inconsistency of the two laws. They are at cross purposes. Choose one or the other.

The E.V. tax break goes only so far (for the purchase, not for the road wear), but it’s still a break.