Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids

24567

Comments

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "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."

    Umm, this discussion will probably go a lot smoother if we DON'T get into what the government's role is supposed to be.

    Then why give a tax credit to someone moving from a 40mpg gas miser to a 50mpg hybrid (saving 10mpg or an improvement of 25%) but NOT giving a tax credit to someone moving from a 20mpg sedan to a 40mpg sedan (saving 20mpg or a 100% improvement)?

    Then why not give a tax credit to owners of diesels who got comparable mileage to hybrids?

    Then why not give a tax credit to someone with a 50 mile commute who changes jobs to a 5 mile commute?

    Then why not give a tax credit to buyers of used hybrids (like larsb)? Should someone who traded in a Prius I for a Prius II get a tax credit?

    All I'm saying is that IF the government was only trying to promote fuel conservation (which seems to be the gist of your post), there are better ways to do it without playing favorites to one particular technology. However, they institued tax credits for hybrids BECAUSE they intended to promote one particular technology.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    You are missing the point - Hummers are not "taxed more" than Priuses NOW.

    Actually aren't Hummers subject to the gas guzzler tax?

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Further to my post, since these are two very different issues one of national security and one of national infrastructure they should NOT be combined into one discussion.

    It is ridiculous on the one hand to award those who want to decrease our dependence on the mideast and then to tax them extra because they stood up. Do we charge those who fight for us away from home a surcharge in their taxes? Not hardly, we do the reverse.

    OTOH we all use the roadways. Back 50 years ago when the tax was introduced to keep the roads up to date personal nationwide travel was in its infancy. Gasoline was an easy common denominator. It is such a different world now from the 50's that a new equation has to be created.

    A Federal tax on vehicles - immediate
    $1.00 Fed/State tax on fuel- phased in over 5 yrs
    $.02/mi tax as noted by Gary - phased in over 3 yrs

    The common thread here is you can choose what you wish and I can choose what I wish. And like the tax code we can 'avoid' taxation as best we can using our best imagination legally.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    How am I talking about everything under the sun?

    Plus how are my arguments weak? You are against special tax circumstances for hybrids, I am pointing out that you are only against them if they don't benefit you.

    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."

    Actually this forum is highway funding ideals. Secondly if you say that one for of tax consequence is bad than that opens the door to discussions of other tax consequences about the same subject. Avoid it all you want you are trying to have it both ways.

    Now as defending it as fair and equitable I think that some here have. But as I said before there is no such thing as a fair and equitable tax.

    I can only think that the reason you will not respond to items that others have brought up is because it will not support your claim.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    "fair tax" might indeed be an oxymoron. However:

    "UNFAIR TAX" is *NOT* ......

    Any tax which targets a person SOLELY because he/she had the foresight or need or desire to purchase a high MPG car is an UNFAIR tax.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Subsidizing vehicles like RX400, HH, HAH is also definitely wrong.

    This is not accurate because the high mpg ratings of the Prius have made it a sexy subject and the object of so much discussion.

    I drive a 4c Camry ( 30 mpg combined ) and will trade it in on a Prius next month ( 48 mpg combined ). I will save 13 gal for every 1000 mi I drive in the future.

    My wife drives an ICE Highlander and gets about 20 mpg combined. If she were to trade to an HH then at 27 mpg combined she would save.... 13 gal / 1000 mi driven.

    A coworker drives a Chevy Silverado getting about 14 mpg combined. If he traded to a Sierra diesel/hybrid (future?) at 19 mpg combined he would save... 19 gal / 1000 mi driven

    The Silverado to Sierra is much more important to the country than the Prius. Mpg ratings are just the 'shorthand' way for the public to understand fuel economy.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "This forum is about "taxing hybrid cars more because they use less gas"

    That's odd. When I look at the title of this thread it says "Highway funding idea include taxes on hybrids".

    So, one must ask, why must highways be funded? Answer: New road construction and existing road maintenance.

    So, the logical next question to ask (in regards to hybrids): Do hybrids require fewer new roads or cause less damage to existing roads just because they use less gas than comparable non-hybrids?

    The answer: NO. 100,000 new Hybrids will need just as much new road as 100,000 new non-hybrids. 100,000 new hybrids weighing 3000lbs each and driving 12k miles per year will cause exactly the SAME amount of road wear and tear as 100,000 comparable non-hybrids.

    Yet, those 100,000 hybrids will pay less in taxes than comparable non-hybrids.

    So perhaps paying taxes based strictly on amount of fuel consumed isn't necessarily the 'fairest' approach.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    If the govt needs more "gas tax" revenue, do it the old fashioned way - RAISE TAXES. For everyone, not just a selected group.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote rorr-That's odd. When I look at the title of this thread it says "Highway funding idea include taxes on hybrids".-end quote

    And what, praytell, is the key issue of contention in this Forum?

    "Highway funding ideas include taxing hybrid cars more because they use less gas" - just like I stated.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    All I'm saying is that IF the government was only trying to promote fuel conservation (which seems to be the gist of your post), there are better ways to do it without playing favorites to one particular technology. However, they institued tax credits for hybrids BECAUSE they intended to promote one particular technology.

    Because at the moment hybrids are the only viable alternative.

    Diesel is probably the best nearterm solution since there is so many different possible sources other than the mideast. But now none are marketable on a mass basis. Clean diesel needs to be made available and proven quickly in order for states to allow its use.

    Clean diesel combined with hybrid technology holds great promise because it can be used with so many heavy vehicles in use now. Small increases in FE on heavy vehicles is way more significant than 50 vs 30 on a Prius or HCH.

    Hydrogen is 15 yrs away barring some spectacular development.

    Increased use of mass transit is WAY too expensive to develop in the nearterm.

    Fuel conservation and independence is a completely separate discussion from rebuilding/maintaining infrastructure. This latter goal demands a new formula in order to equalize the weight of the burden.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Highway funding ideas include taxing hybrid cars more because they use less gas" - just like I stated."

    Okay.

    So, WHY do you suppose the idea has been floated to tax hyrid cars more because they use less gas?

    I've already given you a reason - and the reason is related to why we have gas taxes in the first place.

    My reason: 100,000 hybrids weighing 3000 lbs each and traveling 12k miles per year will need the SAME amount of road and will cause the SAME amount of wear and tear as 100,000 comparable non-hybrids....YET....they pay less in taxes. Therefore, I'm saying that basing highway funding PURELY on the amount of fuel consumed is not the fairest method.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Because at the moment hybrids are the only viable alternative"

    Yes, but at the moment hybrids don't need tax credits to sell.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote rorr-"Yes, but at the moment hybrids don't need tax credits to sell."-end quote

    Say Wha? :confuse: :confuse: :confuse:

    At 1.1 percent of the market, still $2500 to $10000 more than the gas equivalent vehicles, they don't need incentives?

    Is ya Crazy? (tongue in cheek)

    Maybe if Hybrids were 30% of the market I could agree with you. But at a meager 1.1 percent, even in 2005, that argument does not hold water.....
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I was under the impression that the manufacturer's (Honda/Toyota in particular) were selling every unit they could possible manufacture. The only reason they represent 1.1% of the market is because they simply can't make'em fast enough and have been attempting to steadily ramp up production to meet demand.

    I guess the local Toyota dealer has been hiding all their unsold Prii somewhere on a back lot.....

    That doesn't sound like a product that needs any additional tax credits to sell.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How would you propose to fairly spread the burden of maintaining the highways? This is really the first that the FEDS have addressed this discrepancy in the road tax. They did nothing when it looked like we may get electric vehicles. We have a few hundred CNG vehicles that are using PHILL at home with no road tax. Do you consider that fair because they have cleaner exhaust than a hybrid? When we are all driving down the highway with a solar cell on our car roof that propels us for free who should take care of the roads then? Congress is trying to address a problem before it gets out of hand. According to the Toyota bill board their hybrids have saved 99 million gallons of gas. That is $25,000,000 less tax to repair the roads. We will all need Hummers to get anyplace if we depend on the hybrid owners to pay their share of the road upkeep.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Amazing how all of you said that hybrids have such a minimal impact on the fuel saved. Now the tables are turned when you find out the government wants to tax civic minded citizens. Will they tax your hybrid truck? Why should they? It hardly gets better mileage than the non-hybrid. It will NEVER come down to the government singling out one particular group of vehicles. The government realizes it would be counterproductive. People would just flock back to gas guzzlers if they felt they had to pay more "road tax". What happens 20 years from now when we could be putting along on fuel cells? The answer is very very simple. A flat per mile tax for ever mile driven? Whoa... what happens if people are driving ONLY on state/county supported roads? Why should they support the interstate system? How about EZ Pass on all interstates? You all can argue this all you want. Nothing will come to fruition for a decade.
  • callmedrfillcallmedrfill Member Posts: 729
    Nice! ;)

    As the ipso factso "Godfather" of this here forum, let's cut down on the dancing, and make some hard-hitting points that will stoke the fire a little, shall we?

    Ok. The idea that Hybrids aren't "paying their fair share" when it comes to taxes and road maintainance?

    Well, aren't they "paying" by "selling" us less imported oil? Where is the incentive for producing exciting, new, hugely beneficial technologies, when the benefactor will be punished for using the technology?

    If you have CAFE regulations and fines to penalize high corporate fuel consumption, then benefits for low corporate fuel consumption is essential. Otherwise you get not to good, not to bad, you get the Cutting Edge of Mediocre! ;)

    Now, people have too many options these days when it comes to transportation. You can buy used cars, carpool, motorcycle, company vehicles, trains, planes, bikes, and new vehicles.

    Automakers are making family cars with more power than Mustangs GT's had just 2 years ago! Why? Because gas WAS cheap, and people always want more power. Viper, Vette, you name it. What change would you make? Make it more powerful!

    Now that the game has changed in regards to gas prices(temporarily, in my next of the woods, gas is back under $2), THIS is the plan? Attack the vehicles and buyers who are cutting dependence on oil, over 90% of which is foreign, which has either directly, or indirectly led us into two wars in the last 15 years?

    Maybe this is the gubmint's way of fixing the trade imbalance with Japan? Since Hybrid tech is mainly a Japanese nuance, and it's effect on the market may be the death-knell the Big 3 have been waiting for, maybe the Big 3 have said hit 'em where it will hurt? Maybe not.

    All I know is, if Ford and GM were out in front of this new Technology, would it be even considered for taxation? The Big 3 dropped the ball (again), focusing on Hydrogen, wasting time, money, and sales leadership.

    If our government wasn't so wasteful with our tax dollars, so eager to jump into wars, so easy on coporate tax loopholes, we wouldn't have crumbling roads, Matador terrorism defense, and voter disinterest in a system that does not adapt or grow.

    The government mirrors the Big 3 in it's slow-witted, outdated, unfocused way of capturing the power Americans can produce.

    What the gubmint should be doing is creating corporate tax loopholes for companies that make fuel saving components like Hybrid batteries and alike. AND PENALIZING those that hurt our society like cigarettes. Have Philip Morris pay for the roads, along with Gas taxes.

    I lived in NYC for 25 years. NOW we care about the roads? Why doesn't germany care about their roads? The have Autobahns while I have seen potholes consume school buses for 6 months at a time! :mad:

    With my income taxes and property taxes, I'm paying for the schools, the police, the sanitation, and the geniuses running this place! Now I have to buy new roads if I buy a car that's too good on gas? :confuse:

    Alright, alright! That's a little to progressive. I'm sorry. :(

    Tax gas only! You use more, you pay more. You buy smart, you pay less.

    When the big businesses (and little businesses) pay the freight on low mileage vehicles, then you may see the Big 3 get off their collective rumps and make vehicles that are more than just powerful, but will change the way we think about cars and trucks.

    Kinda......like hybrids.....

    The Big 3 make the fuel guzzlers. Trucks have been getting 15 MPG or less for eons! Eons!

    Big 3 Message: Evolve or die! :mad: The Japanese will have gas hogs just as good as yours (probably better) within 5 years?

    What are you gonna do? Evolve? Or......

    DrFill
  • gteegtee Member Posts: 179
    Look most of the road damage is done by heavy trucks. Roads get damaged based on tire pressure with the road. What do you think damages the road more, a 80,000lb truck or a 3,000lb car. The main reason that the roads are in such a poor shape is because of the increased use of roads by trucks. The government should tax the trucks more and leave the current gas tax the way it is. Maybe the tax on Diesel fuel should be increased. That will encourage more shipment of goods using rail roads and decrease the use of trucks. That will do more for our roads then any tax on hybrids.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    thats odd because earlier you said there was.

    FWIW there has always been taxes on select groups but you don't want to discuss that. I wonder why.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    Because at the moment hybrids are the only viable alternative.

    The problem is that the tax credits are only for hybrids not for any fuel efficient cars. Some hybrids (like the escape) get worse gas mileage that a small conventional car.

    FWIW Ford sells a car in the UK that gets just 2 or 3 MPG less than what Prius owners are reporting.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    Actually those heavy trucks pay a whole lot of cash in road use taxes. These trucks pay $8,000+ a year in Federal Highway Use Taxes (The SC Truckers Association estimates that their member trucks pay $8,959 a year). You can drive a prius into the ground and not come close to paying that in road taxes.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    Don't worry they won't put a tax on hybrids. It would not be politically smart. All the environmentalists will launch an all out attack on whoever attempts it.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    What do you think damages the road more, a 80,000lb truck or a 3,000lb car.

    Where is the documented proof of that opinion?
  • jpricejprice Member Posts: 58
    >>What do you think damages the road more, a 80,000lb truck or >>a 3,000lb car.

    >Where is the documented proof of that opinion?

    I see signs frequently that say "No trucks over 6000 Lb allowed on Street (name)" The exact weight may vary; the intent would seem to be to protect some streets from the more massive trucks.

    What sort of tax should we apply to motorcycles? Bicycles? Foot traffic?

    jprice SoCal '05 Silver, #1, 9800 miles, [non-permissible content removed]. mileage 48.2MPG
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Chamber of Commerce suggests possibly taxing hybrids!
    Well, if this isn't a dumb idea, I don't know what is. Here the government (see link) is encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles—and then wants to tax them for doing so?

    That's one idea the Chamber of Commerce is putting forth in order to raise revenues, as the Federal Highway Trust is running out of money, and they need to find new sources of income. But taxing hybrids? I say if a tax is needed, tax by curb weight of the vehicle. The heavier the vehicle, the more it gets taxed—but leave hybrids alone!

    -----
    Would love to see some of your comments here
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Why would you even want proof of that? It's common sense. On Long Island we have parkways where truck traffic is forbidden. Those roads require MUCH less maintenance than highways (trucks allowed). Runways at airports require lots of maintenance because of the weight of planes landing. COMMON SENSE.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    The heavier the vehicle, the more it gets taxed—but leave hybrids alone!

    Actually there is a special tax on heavy vehicles that gets paid yearly and is collected by the IRS (IRS form 2290).

    The rational for taxing hybrids is that they are not paying their "fair" amount of road taxes, such as all other drivers pay more simply because they will use more gas per mile so they pay more in road taxes. The notion is that everyone should pay at least X per mile driven, if someone pays X-Y per mile they should be taxed Y to make up the short fall. This is the same logic for the alternate minimum tax for income taxes.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    The tax code as it is, as outdated as it is, is fair in regard to consumer vehicles.

    Hummer buys 1600 gallons a year, pays taxes on EVERY GALLON BOUGHT AND USED.
    Prius buys 500 gallons a year, pays taxes on EVERY GALLON BOUGHT AND USED.

    How is that not completely equitable.....?????

    How does it make sense to make people pay taxes on fuel they DONT USE??????
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How does it make sense to make people pay for gallons they DONT USE??????

    Because the gallons used has little to do with the use, wear & tear on the roads. A Civic non hybrid may use 1000 gallons to drive the same distance as a Civic hybrid only using 500 gallons. How is it fair that one Civic owner has to pay twice as much to use the roads as a hybrid of the same size? It is unfair to the less fortunate person the cannot afford the hybrid. It is becoming class warfare on a lot of levels in this country. The guy driving the Hummer could care less that you are driving on the highway for less money. The less fortunate than you in a 10 year old Civic is getting screwed by the taxation by the gallon rather than by the mile.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "How is that not completely equitable.....?????"

    Easy - you are using the same road by the same amount and causing the same wear and tear as a non-hybrid.....but paying less in taxes.

    You need to STOP thinking that the gas tax ONLY has to do with GAS. The Gas tax isn't collected to pay for gas production, or maintenance of pipeline infrastructure or anything related to gas.

    The gas tax is a ROAD TAX. It is simply applied to gas because for decades it was the simplest means to approximate the 'fair' amount of tax to be collected for the amount of road usage. But hybrids have skewed things somewhat to the point where they potentially pay far less in taxes for the same amount of road usage as non-hybrids.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Somewhere along the line, you guys seem to have said to yourselves "It's OK to punish hybrid drivers."

    That's not correct.

    Just because now, 50 years after the road tax, there are finally cars that can consistently achieve 50+ MPG, does not mean that it becomes OK to punish the drivers smart enough to buy them.

    Where was this hue and cry to increase the gas tax when everyone was driving 20 MPG SUVs?

    Why did we not start a "graduated tax based on MPG" back in the 1970s when there were finally cars on the road that got MPG in the 40s?

    We did not because it made no sense THEN and it makes no sense NOW.

    Gary was correct when he said "Because the gallons used has little to do with the use, wear & tear on the roads" so by that logic we need not tie "gas tax and road use" at all.

    Continue taxing everyone for the GAS THEY USE and apply those taxes to the road maintenance, but don't unfairly and unreasonably tax some people more just because their car gets more miles to the gallon.

    Or use a graduated tax and charge EVERYONE by the mile.

    But don't target one group and say "because we are jealous of them, let's make them pay more."
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    With the problems the car makers are having now getting mass sales of the Hybrids (even at 200,000 per year that is only 1 percent of the US market) how does it makes sense to say now "OH yes hybrid buyers - you will not only take 5-6 years to make up the 'premium' over the gas model, but now you also get to pay HIGHER gas taxes !!"

    That will work against all the progress we have made in getting these clean cars on the roads.

    You see how stupid this idea is? Give tax incentives to defray hybrid purchase costs but then take money back in higher "gas tax for gas you do not use" taxes?
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    You guys are getting upset over something that will NEVER come to fruition for at least 10-15 years. Hybrids have LESS than a 1% penetration now. Do you actually think the feds think they’re going to get some serious money from that type of base??? The solution is quite simple. Just raise the damn federal gasoline tax which currently sits at $0.186. In the meantime, hybrid buyers are going to enjoy nice fat juicy tax breaks from good ‘ol Uncle Sam. More food for thought. We want to diminish our dependency on foreign oil. Do you think the auto makers will be encouraged to manufacture cars/hybrids that get exceptional mileage if they feel people will NOT buy them? People won’t want to pay additional taxes (aka penalties), so they’ll figure I might at well buy a 18-22 MPG car/truck. In summary, we have two choices. Either raise the gas tax which currently sits at $0.186 OR think of a way to charge people for the miles they drive on the interstates. We all know the latter will not be a doable option. In the meantime, hybrid buyers will continue to enjoy favoritism (tax benefits) which makes others jealous.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Somewhere along the line, you guys seem to have said to yourselves "It's OK to punish hybrid drivers."

    And somewhere along the line, you have said to yourself, "It's OK to reward hybrid drivers" above and beyond the fuel savings. In other words, it's OK for hybrid drivers to use the same road the same amount but pay less for that privlege.

    "Or use a graduated tax and charge EVERYONE by the mile."

    In theory, this would be the 'fairest', but the devil is in the details. In a perfect world, we would be taxed solely on vehicle weight and actual miles traveled. In a perfect world, no one could monkey with their odometers, or all cars would be equipped with GPS recorders which continually sent in data to Big Brother for 'proper' calculation of taxes owed. Heck, there would even be an accounting of miles traveled on federal, state, and local roads and the tax burden distributed accordingly.

    But we don't have that system, we have gas taxes instead. Is it 'fair'? No. All I'm trying to point out is that under the current system, hybrid drivers pay LESS of their 'fair share' of road taxes due purely to hybrid technology.

    "But don't target one group and say "because we are jealous of them, let's make them pay more."

    Jealous? You might be interested to know that our family (dad) has a Prius II and if the Sienna had been available w/ a hybrid drivetrain, my wife and I would have bought one last spring. So I'm not targeting any group because I'm 'jealous'.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    With the problems the car makers are having now getting mass sales of the Hybrids (even at 200,000 per year that is only 1 percent of the US market)

    I can come up with dozens of posts where you, Toyota & Ford are saying that hybrids will be anywhere from 5-50% of the cars in the USA. Congress sees those wild claims and realizes that the road tax that is already under funded will be in deep Doo Doo very soon.

    You see how stupid this idea is? Give tax incentives to defray hybrid purchase costs but then take money back in higher "gas tax for gas you do not use" taxes?

    You did not want to include the unfair tax credits in this discussion. We are talking two entirely different totally unrelated issues. One deals with using up the fossil fuel and pollution. The other is our highways and bridges are falling apart. To show how greedy the hybrid owners are: Number one you get a tax break for buying the hybrid. If the $3150 holds true for the Prius. It would take 34 years to use that money in the added mileage tax. Number two, most of the hybrids are allowed to use the HOV lanes. The bulk of the hybrids are sold in CA & VA. Many states offer additional tax credits. Many companies are offering a big fat bonus for buying a hybrid. Are hybrid owners that greedy they don't want to pay an additional $92 per year for driving the 15k miles on our highways. I have never heard a Hummer or SUV driver whining that they pay 3-5 times as much in road tax as a little car. Our government tries to equalize the burden of highway maintenance and Who are the ones squealing like a pig? I would not want to be included in that cheapskate demographic.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I KNOW that it's a money issue. If a magic wand could be waved and tomorrow we all had vehicles that got 200 MPG, we'd suddenly find ourselves woefully short of highway funds because of the reduced gasoline use, and we'd HAVE to find a way to pay for the upkeep of the roads.

    Same thing would be the case if we suddenly found an alternative fuel that was cheap and practical.

    A tax per mile driven, incorporating the weight of the vehicle (so you'd have some unit like POUND-MILES) seems a likely way to go. Or perhaps something like that gets added on top of a fuel tax.

    Or maybe the solution is to drop the fuel taxes and simply charge based on the roads you use. EZ Pass automatically "collects" your toll on bridges and toll roads. Why not a system that simply goes KACHING for every mile you drive on a given road? Roads that get used heavier and need more maintenance would generate more revenue simply because they have more traffic. I'm not saying it would be a simple thing to implement, but it certainly isn't out of reach technology wise.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    If the efforts to reduce fuel consumption WORK, that's good for everyone except the state highway departments, I guess, huh?

    If it comes to that, then we can just add more taxes to the vehicle registration fees, of all vehicles, based on MSRP of the car.

    That way, no one is getting charged unfairly. Charging one group because their vehicles get higher MPG is inherently unfair.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It really is not hybrid specific. It is anyone that uses the road specific. It has come into the light as the disparity between vehicles has widened. In the past it was based pretty much on a weight per mile. The heavier the vehicle the more gas it took to move it down the road. Now you have a 4000lb RX400h getting 30 MPG and a 3000 lb minivan getting 15 MPG. The one will impact the road as much or more than the other yet the RX400h rich guy pays half the tax of the poor mini-van driving soccer mom.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Everyone keeps making the SAME mistake. This was a blurb from the Chamber of Commerce and NOT congress. Do you people have any idea how long it will take for any new policy to come to fruition? You're all getting excited about NOTHING. Relax...it's holiday season folks!!!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Charging one group because their vehicles get higher MPG is inherently unfair.

    Think about what you are saying. If it is unfair to charge one group more because they get higher mileage. Would it not be just as unfair to charge another group that gets worse mileage. You are trying to mix apples with oranges. Gas used at one time kind of went along with miles driven. Now it is not so. Take the EV-1. Those guys plugged into the power grid and paid nothing for use of the roads. This very subject came up in the CA legislature when it looked like the electric cars were going to invade the state.

    I personally do not like the GPS invasion of privacy. I think simpler ways could be implemented. The state of CA gets your mileage reading when you get a smog check. Charge for miles between smog checks. Or just get your mileage read when you pay for new tags. It is not going to be a big amount of money.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gagrice-"Think about what you are saying. If it is unfair to charge one group more because they get higher mileage. Would it not be just as unfair to charge another group that gets worse mileage."-end quote

    What I'm saying is - Dont Charge Anyone Differently Based On GAS MILEAGE At All - HUMMERS to INSIGHTS !!

    Charge people for the gas they buy, then if you need more road tax money, collect it based on MSRP of the car at vehicle registration time.

    What's hard to understand about that? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Beuller? :D
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    This was a blurb from the Chamber of Commerce and NOT congress.

    Not sure where you got that idea. It is something that will go into effect within the next 3-4 years.

    A switch in the way the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax is levied could be in the offing, making it more of a user fee than a tax. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation Tuesday to establish a 15-member commission to report back within two years on ways to ensure enough tax revenue to pay for the nation's highway, bridge and public transit programs.

    High on the list the panel will consider is the per-mile fee that is already the subject of a $1.25 million pilot project in Oregon that will use a special "smart'' odometer coupled with a global positioning system in every vehicle, a system invented at Oregon State University.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,450
    Somewhere along the line, you guys seem to have said to yourselves "It's OK to punish hybrid drivers."

    No one is saying to "punish" hybrid drivers but have them pay a fair portion of road use taxes.

    Where was this hue and cry to increase the gas tax when everyone was driving 20 MPG SUVs?

    It was there weren't you listening?

    Gary was correct when he said "Because the gallons used has little to do with the use, wear & tear on the roads" so by that logic we need not tie "gas tax and road use" at all.

    A combination of the two would work just as well.

    Continue taxing everyone for the GAS THEY USE

    Its not a tax on the gas used but a tax for road usage.

    But don't target one group and say "because we are jealous of them, let's make them pay more."

    Who is jealous? Not I, for even after 200k miles my total driving costs will still be lower than yours.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    The COC suggested the hybrid tax. As to the SFC, your information is correct. They said it would take 10-15 years to implement. I suggest just to add a buck to the current price of gas. KISS. We're still better than the Europeans. We're TOO spoiled.

    Oh Gary... they closed the GM thread. Can you show me were you got your info about the Cobalt having stability control? If so, I'll buy one.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Can you show me were you got your info about the Cobalt having stability control? If so, I'll buy one.

    ABS & Traction control is standard on the $17k top of the line Cobalt. It is an option on all the cobalt line. Right here on Edmund's. Enjoy your new ride.

    cobalt

    This system utilizes wheel-speed sensors that automatically detect wheel slippage to help limit wheel spin (and enhance control) on slippery surfaces

    http://www.chevrolet.com/safety/before/tractioncontrol/
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Electronic Stability Control system is not the same as a simple "traction control" system.

    ESC is this:

    "ESC compares the driver's intended direction in steering and braking inputs, to the vehicle's response, via lateral acceleration, rotation (yaw) and individual wheel speeds. ESC then brakes individual front or rear wheels and/or reduces excess engine power as needed to help correct understeer (plowing) or oversteer (fishtailing). ESC also integrates all-speed traction control, which senses drive-wheel slip under acceleration and individually brakes the slipping wheel or wheels, and/or reduces excess engine power, until control is regained. ESC cannot override a car's physical limits. If a driver pushes the possibilities of the car's chassis and ESC too far, ESC cannot prevent a crash. It is a tool to help the driver maintain control.

    ESC combines anti-lock brakes, traction control and yaw control (yaw is spin around a vertical axis). To grasp how it works, think of steering a canoe. If you want the canoe to turn or rotate to the right, you plant the paddle in the water on the right to provide a braking moment on the right side. The canoe pivots or rotates to the right. ESC fundamentally does the same to assist the driver."

    Traction control is this:

    "Traction Control is usually considered as a performance enhancement, allowing maximum traction under acceleration without wheel spin. It is also extremely useful in countries that suffer from icy or snowy roads: When driving up a slippery hill, giving full gas and letting the car's TCS take care of the throttle control will allow to scale slopes that are nigh-on impossible without TCS.

    It is particularly advantageous to 4x4 vehicles when driven off road on a loose surface. Conversely Vehicle Stability Control is considered a safety feature preventing operation of a vehicle at the edge of the safety envelope.

    It is widely thought that TC removes some skill and control from the driver. As such it is unpopular with many motorsports fans. Some motorsports series have given up trying to outlaw traction control, either because the general function is so hard to detect, eg F1, or, as in many U.S. stock car series, because it is possible to incorporate an effective traction control device in the wiring, invisible to scrutineers."

    ESC is a much more involved and complicated and effective system, of which traction control is merely a part....

    PS
    This is the wrong Forum for this subject - Hosts, to where can it be moved?
  • david1973david1973 Member Posts: 23
    What is so hard to understand about how taxing based on MSRP is grossy unfair. Why should one pay more tax on my porsche which only drives 5k a year than on a prius that drives 20k a year. Taxing per mile or Taxing per gallon are equally fair. Prius benefit on the per gallon tax and H2s benefit on the per mile tax. Just because you are no longer the winner under a new system doesn't make it unfair.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Charge people for the gas they buy, then if you need more road tax money, collect it based on MSRP of the car at vehicle registration time."

    HOORAY! Finally, some progress. At least you are correctly referring to the taxes as ROAD TAXES. Further progress is possible.

    Consider the road taxes a non-hybrid Civic owner pays compared to a HCH owner: the HCH is rated at 50mpg highway. The non-hybrid automatic Civic is rated at 40mpg highway. Therefore, the HCH gets 25% better highway mileage than the non-hybrid Civic. Which means that FOR THE SAME # of miles driven (and theoretically wear/tear on the roads), the HCH owner is paying 25% less road taxes than the non-hybrid owner.

    Remember, these are ROAD TAXES. Is it fair that the hybrid owner is paying less ROAD TAXES, despite identical road usage?

    Both use the roads the same. Yet the hybrid owner pays less road tax.

    BTW - why would you advocate charging more road taxes based on vehicle MSRP? Isn't that targeting a specific group due to jealousy?
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    What do you think damages the road more, a 80,000lb truck or a 3,000lb car.

    Where is the documented proof of that opinion?


    Ummm, you might want to try the 1997 U. S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, Report on Audit of the Vehicle Weight Enforcement Program

    I think that you'll find all of the proof you need there.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I chose "MSRP based road taxes" because that's how Arizona (where I now reside) already bases their vehicle registrations fees.

    I have no real opinion about the fairness of that tax calculation method - we live with it here, it's what we've got.

    TO RORR:

    About the comparison between the non-Hybrid Civic and the Hybrid civic. How many miles per gallon each car gets is not an issue to me. If both people pay Road Taxes for every gallon of gas the use, then they are both paying for the same thing. There will be hybrid owners who drive a lot of miles and hybrid owners who drive a few miles, and there will be non-hybrid Civic owners who drive a ton of miles and those who drive only a few miles - it will all even out in the end. Just don't charge someone more because they get higher MPG.

    If you want to start putting MPG as a category for how you base road tax fees (which I think is unfair to everyone) then base it on MPG for EVERY car, not just a select group of high MPG cars.
This discussion has been closed.