New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Really? Is there a similar tax applied to pickup trucks and SUVs/CUVs?

Yes, since they typically use more fuel.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

EVs are heavier than most ICE (comparable) vehicles. They should pay more for road use maintenance. It's pretty logical. Basically plugging a loophole.

Road maintenance notionally paid for by fuel taxes, a reasonable sliding scale that automatically compensates for heavy or inefficient vehicles, how much each individual pounds pavement, etc. EV's don't pay fuel taxes so womp. Agree, not an unreasonable rebalancing for infrastructure maintenance, as Dadhawk points out Georgia is already doing it.

Outrage: not found
Amusement: high that this thread is still alive


edit; fuck beaten to the punch.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Agree, not an unreasonable rebalancing for infrastructure maintenance, as Dadhawk points out Georgia is already doing it.

Not just Georgia. At least 17 states have a similar charge.

Not sure how recent this article is.

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Really? Is there a similar tax applied to pickup trucks and SUVs/CUVs?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/40657/...-pounds-report

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Unless I missed something, he got stock options. That only increased his wealth, but not his income. He doesn't have to claim that on his income taxes. It is only taxable when he cashes out his stocks, but like most CEOs and billionaires, he only cashes out a small amount of his wealth each year. I wouldn't be surprised if this amount averages to under $10 million per year.

Any amount he's cashing out still needs to be taxed, so he is just preventing future state income tax by going this route and setting up other shell companies or charities to offset the tax hit.

I offset/spread enough of my income on an annual basis to the point where zero state income tax is not an incentive for me to move. But I'm also not at the point where 95%+ of my income could be taxed at the highest bracket...

Edit: I should add that "payout" in my previous post is what he is compensated for. If/when he turns that into reported income is when all this matters, he's purely doing it for PR reasons as to not receive bad press. But he's already semi-manipulating the markets by constantly talking about crypto.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yes, since they typically use more fuel.

Loosely, typically. We have a Q5 with the 3.0T, but the standard 2.0T is heavier than the Q3, but has better fuel economy because it has two more gears in the transmission, among other things.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...-fuel-economy/

I'm not saying the EV tax isn't logical. I'm just saying it isn't about vehicle weight.

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

https://www.thedrive.com/news/40657/...-pounds-report

The original H1 was 8,000lbs and had far less performance. The H2 was much smaller, and again, it wasn't in the same league. It was essentially a Chevy 2500 with a shell. Considering the 1000hp and performance and features, I would say the 9,000lbs is pretty good.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2024...cs-comparison/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Any amount he's cashing out still needs to be taxed, so he is just preventing future state income tax by going this route and setting up other shell companies or charities to offset the tax hit.

I offset/spread enough of my income on an annual basis to the point where zero state income tax is not an incentive for me to move. But I'm also not at the point where 95%+ of my income could be taxed at the highest bracket...

Edit: I should add that "payout" in my previous post is what he is compensated for. If/when he turns that into reported income is when all this matters, he's purely doing it for PR reasons as to not receive bad press. But he's already semi-manipulating the markets by constantly talking about crypto.

The question is if he moves the HQ of Tesla to Ireland five years before he retires and liquidates his shares, is he paying Ireland's capital gains taxes or Texas? I'm not a tax expert, so I don't know. Hypothetically, if his house is in California, but the headquarters for Tesla is in a shell in Ireland, but the factory is in Texas, but he spends the entire year at a luxury hotel in Thailand working from phone calls and Zoom, and then he cashes out stock options, where does he pay taxes?

I guess my main point is that he cashes out such a small percentage of his wealth that A) the 13% or less in California taxes is a drop in the bucket, and B) he has all the time in the world to figure out how to avoid taxes for the bulk of his wealth in the future.

Say he cashed out $10 million, and he has to pay $1.3 million in California taxes, but he is worth $150 billion, then he just cashed out 0.0066% of his wealth and paid 0.00086% of his wealth in taxes, which is analogous to a person who has $100k in savings cashing out $660 of their 401k and paying $86 in taxes. Probably not something that would cause anyone to bail from California. Maybe he plans to start dumping his stocks.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The question is if he moves the HQ of Tesla to Ireland five years before he retires and liquidates his shares, is he paying Ireland's capital gains taxes or Texas? I'm not a tax expert, so I don't know. .

To avoid US income tax he would have to give up his US citizenship. A US citizen has to pay income tax regardless of where it is earned, for the very reason you describe.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm not saying the EV tax isn't logical. I'm just saying it isn't about vehicle weight.

I agree, I'm just hoping this doesn't lead to a standardized non-fuel road tax, which has been suggested in the past (one where you have to report mileage every year).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

To avoid US income tax he would have to give up his US citizenship. A US citizen has to pay income tax regardless of where it is earned, for the very reason you describe.

We aren't talking about Federal taxes. We are talking mostly about state taxes because he moved out of state to avoid state taxes, apparently. Part of that was saying if he lived in Ireland or Thailand, but had a residence in Texas then does he pay Texas taxes...well, Texas doesn't have state income tax, but would he pay California income tax? My uncle and aunt have a house in Georgia, a lake house in North Carolina and a ski house in Aspen Colorado, but I don't think they have to pay state income taxes in Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado. Say they gave themselves stock options in their company when the company or when they were/lived in Georgia, but they excised those stock options when they retired in California and when the company moved to Oregon: what state do they pay taxes from?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I agree, I'm just hoping this doesn't lead to a standardized non-fuel road tax, which has been suggested in the past (one where you have to report mileage every year).

I already do that on my insurance to get a reduced premium. I know it would be bad for you because you travel far to work, but is it unfair to you?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The question is if he moves the HQ of Tesla to Ireland five years before he retires and liquidates his shares, is he paying Ireland's capital gains taxes or Texas? I'm not a tax expert, so I don't know. Hypothetically, if his house is in California, but the headquarters for Tesla is in a shell in Ireland, but the factory is in Texas, but he spends the entire year at a luxury hotel in Thailand working from phone calls and Zoom, and then he cashes out stock options, where does he pay taxes?

I guess my main point is that he cashes out such a small percentage of his wealth that A) the 13% or less in California taxes is a drop in the bucket, and B) he has all the time in the world to figure out how to avoid taxes for the bulk of his wealth in the future.

Say he cashed out $10 million, and he has to pay $1.3 million in California taxes, but he is worth $150 billion, then he just cashed out 0.0066% of his wealth and paid 0.00086% of his wealth in taxes, which is analogous to a person who has $100k in savings cashing out $660 of their 401k and paying $86 in taxes. Probably not something that would cause anyone to bail from California. Maybe he plans to start dumping his stocks.

I'm no tax expert but he probably donates shares to his foundation, then gives it away.

Oh, he moved the foundation to Texas last year too.

https://www.vox.com/recode/22221173/...lthiest-person

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We aren't talking about Federal taxes. We are talking mostly about state taxes because he moved out of state to avoid state taxes, apparently.

True. If you live in one state and work in another, it can be complicated if the states do not have a reciprocal agreement for taxes. Somes states that border each other have this agreement so you only have to file taxes in your declared resident state, assuming you have to file taxes.

I have quite a few fellow employees that live in Alabama but work in Georgia. They have to file in both states, Georgia as a non-resident and Alabama as a resident. You would though, pay only one tax, that of your home state as the money can only be taxed once. My employer withholds state taxes based on your address of record.

At the other end of the state, if you live in Georgia (6% tax) and work in Florida (0% tax) you would pay Georgia tax. Live in Florida and work in Georgia? You still pay the Georgia income tax.

As I recall, earnings on stock options are considered regular income rather than capital gains. I could be wrong on that portion though.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I already do that on my insurance to get a reduced premium. I know it would be bad for you because you travel far to work, but is it unfair to you?

It's not unfair if everyone is doing it, and they drop the gas tax altogether. I already pay my share based on miles driven, but it's also based on fuel economy. I pay about half what I would pay if I were driving my Suburban back and forth to work (16 MPG vs 32 MPG). A straight mileage based solution would not likely take that into account.

So, if it fully replaces the gas tax AND it takes into account fuel economy, I'm OK with it. The state already knows how much I drive every year anyway because I'm in an emissions testing area.