Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids
I found this article in the Seattle PI on November 26th. The link to the article is below -
One proposal is that owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles pay a vehicle fee, the argument being that drivers should bear their fair share to fill the potholes and fix the bridges, regardless of how much or what kind of fuel they use.
If you think this is as crazy as it sounds, please send a short e-mail to your congressman and have this nipped in the bud.
Thanks.
T
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/249811_gastax26.html
---
One proposal is that owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles pay a vehicle fee, the argument being that drivers should bear their fair share to fill the potholes and fix the bridges, regardless of how much or what kind of fuel they use.
If you think this is as crazy as it sounds, please send a short e-mail to your congressman and have this nipped in the bud.
Thanks.
T
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/249811_gastax26.html
---
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What if you think it is a logical way to maintain the highway revenue? Another post today declares 99 million gallons of gas saved by HSD. That is about $25 million in lost road tax. Rather than all the wasted money for a GPS device to track miles. It would be easier to just tack $100 to the license fee each year for hybrids, to cover the lost revenue.
I will start an ACLU-backed lawsuit if anyone tries to tax me more because I had the foresight and intelligence to purchase a high MPG commuter car.
As for fees - a great story last night on one of the local news stations in San Francisco. They were interviewing salespeople and potential hybrid customers at dealerships about a tax. The comments were basically that people are already willing to pay more for a hybrid version of a vehicle (e.g. Honda Civic EX Sedan / automatic invoice = $17,422 v. Honda Civic Hybrid sedan invoice = $19,967) so slapping an addition tax of up to $1500 would be insane.
There are so few of us, that we are in the vast vast minority, and the other drivers will look at it as "it's not a tax on ME, so why not?"
This will have to be stopped before it ever gets voted on or it will not be stopped.
As far as the ACLU, this is DEFINITELY a case of "civil liberties of a select small group of people being violated" by taxing them because of something they bought, while not taxing another person for something THAT PERSON bought.
Person A drives a Civic EX
Person B drives a Civic Hybrid
Tax person B
That in itself is discrimination.
So Hybrids are ALREADY "taxed" more than the comparable gas model.
I agree. So we should repeal those tax credits/deductions too.
If you want to talk about tax incentives, go to THAT board.
The two have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that they are completely opposing views:
1. Here's a tax credit/deduction - please buy a Hybrid !!
2. Oh, and here's and EXTRA GAS TAX - because you bought a hybrid !!
First off it is not only hybrids. It will be all high mileage cars that will be asked to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining roads. If any group are discriminated against it would be the Hummer2 owners that pay 5 times as much road tax as the Prius, Jetta TDI and HCH drivers. As was pointed out taxation in this country has never been fair. The fairest tax would be a combination of PSI on the road & mileage. The HCH should not get by with half the tax of a regular Civic. That is discrimination. I would not spend that tax credit until 2007 when the IRS decides how it will be doled out.
The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away. It is obvious the Energy dept. is not in touch with the transportation dept.
The two have nothing to do with one another....."
Sorry, larsb, I'm going to have to disagree.
Both tax situations under discussion (the tax credits for a hybrid purchase and the additional taxes on hybrids to cover lost gas tax revenue) discriminate. One is a discrimintation in favor of hybrids, the other a discrimination against. Both situations set up a different tax climate than the purchase of 'normal' vehicles. And playing with the tax system to discriminate (whether in favor of or against something) is a two-edged sword.
Is taxing hybrids more because they get higher mileage fair? No. But at the same time, is if 'fair' for the government to subsidize the sale of hybrids with tax credits? To that, I would also say 'No.'
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of the government using the tax system to target any specific group, service, industry or product, either favorably or unfavorably.
Whereas buyer "B" who buys a Civic Hybrid is doing MUCH for the environment and for reducing fossil fuel consumption.
Thus the whole "and valid" point for the tax credit/deduction given for taking a POSITIVE action to help all of us buy buying a hybrid.
Now, then turning around and taxing Buyer "B" *SOLELY BECAUSE* his car now uses less fossil fuel - that's ludicrous, ridiculous, idiotic, and unfair.
If the government wants to increase gas tax revenue by taxing ALL CARS by the miles driven, in order to recoup lost taxes caused by ALL CARS becoming more fuel efficient, then that's fair.
Taxing only SOME of the drivers is the unfair part, and nothing any of you can say will CAUSE THAT TO BECOME FAIR.
Actually that would be a case that would be hard, if not impossible, to win. Many taxes are item specific and everyone of them have stood up in court.
Now if both person A and person B both in the same jurisdiction at the same time bought a Civic EX or both bought a Civic Hybrid and were taxed differently then you would have a case. However since both cars are different the case falls apart.
FWIW taxes by there very nature are discriminatory.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In other words you want it both ways. Don't tax me because I bought a hybrid, just reduce mine because I did.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Taxing only SOME of the drivers is the unfair part, and nothing any of you can say will CAUSE THAT TO BECOME FAIR.
Ok lets be fair, junk the luxury tax and the gas guzzler tax, because taxing some of the drivers is unfair. Oh and while we are at it get rid of the hybrid tax credit because we want to be fair.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I wish I had said that. Very well expressed.
What I did say, and I stand by, is that taxing a person for miles driven JUST BECAUSE THEY OWN A HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLE is unfair, if you do not tax ALL the drivers for miles driven.
In other words, don't pick out hybrid drivers for additional taxation just because they were smart enough to buy a hybrid. If you want to tax ALL DRIVERS for miles driven to make up in lost gas tax revenue, then count me in.
But don't tax me more because my car gets better gas mileage. THAT'S the UNFAIR part.
If you want to talk about that, go to that Forum, but please stop bringing it up here - they are OPPOSITE things.
Taxation by the mile as is being implemented in Oregon and proposed in CA is for ALL vehicles. Not just high mileage cars. How can you disregard the fact that hybrid drivers are just as much responsible for maintaining the highways as the non-hybrid drivers. It has nothing to do with how clean the car's exhaust may be. It has to do with miles driven on our highways. We are not talking big bucks here. The average 15k mile driver would be paying less than $200 per year in mileage tax. In Oregon that will be in place of the regular state gas tax.
If the states want to charge more gas taxes because the fuel economy of the whole fleet of drivers in that state has gone up and they are collecting less gas tax, then fine.
My point is: don't single out one group and say "it's their fault we are collecting less taxes, so let's tax them MORE" because that is simply unfair and untrue.
For states to apply that sort of tax is them being blinded by greed.
Whoa hold on there cowboy, when I said that I wasn't making a direct quote from you. But while it isn't exactly what you said that is the underlying tone of your posts here.
In post number 6 you said
"As far as the ACLU, this is DEFINITELY a case of "civil liberties of a select small group of people being violated" by taxing them because of something they bought, while not taxing another person for something THAT PERSON bought.
Person A drives a Civic EX
Person B drives a Civic Hybrid
Tax person B
That in itself is discrimination."
In other words its unfair if you (a hybrid owner) gets an extra tax.
Now in post number 16 you said:
"Not getting a tax credit is not unfair to Buyer "A" who buys a Civic EX and does not get a tax credit because he, as a buyer, is doing nothing "for the public good." "
In other words it is fair that you (a hybrid owner) gets a tax break.
So basically you are saying "Don't tax me because I have a hybrid, but give me my tax break because I have a hybrid". You do want it both ways.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Since you are getting special tax treatment for buying one maybe you should not be so upset about other special tax treatments.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let me see if I can get this straight:
You are AGAINST additional taxes which target a specific group of people (additional taxes for hybrid owners).
Yet, at the same time, you are FOR tax credits which target a specific group of people (buyers of hybrids).
Your rational for being against the additional taxes are that they are 'unfair' SINCE THEY TARGET A SPECIFIC GROUP. Yet, by this SAME LOGIC, wouldn't tax credits ALSO be 'unfair' since they target a specific group?
Both tax scenarios (tax credits and additional taxes) target specific groups. Just because one 'encourages' while the other 'punishes' doesn't make one more or less 'fair' than the other.
Would you be happier if this thread where re-titled "Hybrids and Taxes" so we could discuss both scenarios? Would that be 'fair'?
And let's try to avoid making sweeping, disparaging generalizations about groups of people as well. I've removed the last post for that reason.
Let's not go off the deep end, OK?
You are probably right. The tax incentive for driving a clean car has little to do with the fact that a hybrid has the same impact on the road system as a non-hybrid. The Congress is trying to find ways to maintain the road system with a drop in highway revenues. That loss of revenue is directly related to less gas bought per mile driven. Logical solution is to tax by the mile driven.
I haven't seen truer words posted in quite some time. The problem is that no two people will ever completely agree on what constitutes 'fair'.
Consider: gas taxes go towards the construction of new roads as well as the maintenance for old roads. There is a direct relationship between vehicle weight and road degradation (IOW - heavier vehicles cause more damage/mile and it would be only 'fair' that heavier vehicles pay more on a per mile basis). So, from that standpoint, paying a flat rate per mile driven isn't entirely 'fair' either since a Miata would be doing far less damage to the road/mile than a Ford F250.
The 'fairest' solution would probably be pretty messy to try and implement (some complicated relationship between miles driven and vehicle weight). In lieu of that, I think the best solution is to just keep with the gas tax. However, rather than setting the tax at a fixed $/gallon, I don't know why it isn't set at some %/gallon (ie. a sales tax).
Also what about miles not driven on a public road? I bet I put at least 1.5-2 miles a week in the parking lot at work and the private roads that lead to it every week.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
NOW BACK TO THE PERTINENT SUBJECT AT HAND:
As far as the taxing hybrid owners more for driving a car which gets high miles per gallon, that is unfair and illogical and ridiculous. It's in effect "tax punishment" because you are "punishing a hybrid driver by taxing them more than a non-hybrid driver" when the whole intent of public policy is to REDUCE fuel consumption.
It all boils down to the fact that the 1956 tax law which began taxing gasoline purchases to help pay for road maintenance is simply outdated. You don't "patch it" but instead need to re-think the whole method of taxation.
Tax everyone equally, regardless of how many MPG they get, or tax no one at all. Taxing Hummers more is just as wrong as taxing Priuses more.
Tax everyone equally based on what? Should a 100% electric vehicle pay anything for road construction/maintenance?
It uses the road, correct? It is taxed in the electricity used to "fuel" the EV.
No they are not, certainly not more than anyone else who buys a fuel efficient vehicle. But if they get a tax credit for reducing emissions and fuel consumption shouldn't someone who walks to work , take public transportation or rides a bike get even more of a tax credit? You want to be fair lets be fair, or is your fairness subjective.
Tax everyone equally, regardless of how many MPG they get, or tax no one at all.
Well which is it? tax equally or don't tax hybrid owners more? Lets face it a prius driver getting 48 MPG pays less in taxes for the road than a mustang driver getting 25 MPG. So to be taxed equally shouldn't the hybrid driver have an added tax to make things equal?
Actually I don't think it is outdated, it may need a little tune up but its simply not outdated. Its simple, the more you drive the more you pay.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes, it uses the road. However, I'm not aware of any taxes on electricity which go towards road construction/maintenance.
By "tax equally" I mean there is nothing wrong with the tax as it is - if you buy 600 gallons of gas in a year, you pay tax on 600 gallons of gas.
By increasing the "tax" on people who get more MPG, you are in effect saying "you only bought 600 gallons of gas but you will be taxed as if you bought 800 gallons."
THAT is the part which is unfair - taxing someone MORE just because their car gets high MPG.
Taxing the high mileage vehicles is a weird thing. Its like taxing an Apartment dweller, since he uses less energy.
It's a point for discussion because there are two goods to come from the two proposals. These have nothing to do with hybrids per se, hybrids are just the flash point in both discussions: ( 'Why should they get a break?' non-hybrid owners.. Why should I have to pay extra? hybrid owners).
Is taxing hybrids more because they get higher mileage fair? No. But at the same time, is if 'fair' for the government to subsidize the sale of hybrids with tax credits? To that, I would also say 'No.'
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of the government using the tax system to target any specific group, service, industry or product, either favorably or unfavorably.
We stongly disagree here because it is the government's duty and right to protect us, our way of life, our economic health and our safety. It was a conservative Republican President and Congress that proposed and passed legislation giving tax benefits to those of us who wish to take a stand against the taxes placed on us by the saudi princes and ayatollahs.
The tax benefit was directed to new buyers of fuel efficient vehicles beginning next year. The new legislation did not reward only past hybrid owners, that would be discriminatory, it opened the tax benefit to anyone next year.
Those who choose to continue to support our friendly mideastern allies in saudi and iran are able to do so as well. Buy more gas and horde it... send direct contributions to the mideast.. etc.
However our government thinks differently and it is willing to reward those who wish to join in the effort. It is in our national interest to go along with our President and Congress who see the benefit to cutting the 'oil leash' we strain against.
You may wish to avoid that issue, but since we are talking about tax consequences of owning a hybrid (current or proposed) it is fair game and I will continue to bring it up as long as you say that a specific tax consequence of owning a hybrid is unfair.
By "tax equally" I mean there is nothing wrong with the tax as it is - if you buy 600 gallons of gas in a year, you pay tax on 600 gallons of gas.
Huh??? You are contradicting yourself. In post number 35 you said:
"It all boils down to the fact that the 1956 tax law which began taxing gasoline purchases to help pay for road maintenance is simply outdated."
So which is it? Outdated or nothing wrong with it?
Anyways is that equal if person A can drive further and cause more damage to the roads than person B on those 600 gallons? NO!
THAT is the part which is unfair - taxing someone MORE just because their car gets high MPG.
If thats the case then the luxury tax and the gas guzzler tax is unfair.
But then again is it fair that you pay less in gas taxes that pay for the roads than most other people? NO!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You stated that we should "tax everyone equally, regardless of how many mpg they get". I'm simply asking you if it is 'fair' for someone to use the roads (supposedly paid and maintained by gas taxes) when they use NO gas (electric vehicle). Whether there is only 1 electric vehicle or 1 million doesn't change whether or not it is 'fair'.
Bottom line is, they (electric vehicles) are using the roads and 'should' pay for their construction/upkeep. All I'm asking you is if they should be taxed and, if so, on what basis.
Those who have limited incomes: This is the most regressive of all taxes. It taxes the lower incomes much more relatively than the higher incomes. Not good.
Since this proposal would tax us in getting to our sources of incomes:
It may actually increase the use of mass transit.. Good
It may speed up the development of work from home occupations.. Good benefits for the quality of life.
It may reverse the transition from Urban to Suburban living sending people back into the cities to be closer to their sources of income. Good and Bad..
You make my point exactly. It is not fair that someone with a vehicle that gets 25 MPG is taxed twice as much as the person that gets 50 MPG. Road wear is based on miles driven. Not how much gas a car uses. I can see a premium for heavier vehicles. Not 5 times more per mile driven.
Yeah weird like taxing decks of cards that have contain no more than 54 cards - wait Alabama has that sorry.
Ok weird like adding an extra 0.5% on take out food to stop littering - oh wait Chicago has that.
Point is it wouldn't be the first "weird" tax.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Anyway in the next 2 years, there should be hybrids in the sub 20 K range and at that time, hopefully all deductions for hybrids will be removed.
At the same time, there should be no Tax on Hybrids. Imagine gas prices exceeding above $3 / gallon and if the State taxed hybrids, people will simply end up buying small hatch / wagons
If you start charging high MPG cars more, you unbalance that equation.
Is that so hard to see?
This forum is about "taxing hybrid cars more because they use less gas" which no one so far has successfully defended as "fair and equitable."
I will respond to items addressing this only - not anything related to gas guzzler taxes, road damage, tax incentives, etc. there are separate Forums for that.