I was not comparing EVs. I was simply stating that damage to the road should be paid appropriately. I was comparing my small 1.2 ton ICE with a 2.4 ton SUV (regardless of motor). The SUV does 16 time more damage.
I admit I was not aware of how the rego is calculated - anyway I just did this comparison: The rego component for a VW Polo is $428, but for a Hyundai Palisade it is $622. (Both ICEs). If we wanted to pay for the roads fairly then the Palisade owner should be paying 16 times more.
Now there is some tax on the fuel: the rego calculator says that the average annual fuel cost for the Palisade is $2136, but $1603 for the Polo. Assuming one third of the fuel cost is tax, then: Palisade pays 622 + 712 = 1334 total rego + fuel tax Polo: 428 + 534 = 962 So Palisade owner is 962 x 16 -1334 = $14,058 short of paying equivalent for road maintenance as the Polo owner (Even if the fuel used is underestimated, it would not change the figures much.)
Switching to EVs removes these incidents altogether. (Then of course there are the oil spills - but that is a different topic altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill)
But you totally forgot what this was all about. My original post was about you: "complaining about loosing [sic] fuel excise revenue to maintain the roads being damaged by the heavier freeloader BEVs."@danwell.finno
And I responded with "I don't have a problem with taxes to maintain roads. What I have a problem with is where the fee is not proportionate to the damage."
So stick to the point. Improve your maths. Learn the difference between lose and loose (many others here need to do that too). Look up the links that are offered to you. But I don't have any suggestion on what you have to do to understand them.
PLS Price at posting:
$3.19 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held