Calling Los Angeles-based car shoppers: Have you recently traded in (or plan to trade in) a car with negative equity (i.e. the amount you owe on your auto loan is greater than the car's value)? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 11/6 for details.

Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids

13567

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I have read that and several other reports. There is controversy about the extent of damage caused to our infrastructure by trucks, cars & weather. Not conclusive in my opinion.
    I agree that many of our side roads and highways were not designed to handle big trucks. The Interstates were supposedly designed to take very heavy loads. I would like to see a PSI on the road comparison. As has been pointed out the big rigs pay a very sizable tariff each year for using the highways. Much more proportionately than is being proposed in this mileage tax discussion.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    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.

    Thats just as unfair, Me and the wife have three cars, two daily drives and the car for special occasions. Of course the car for special occasions has a MSRP higher than the two daily drive combined yet put on 5-6 times the miles.

    So tell me why should I pay more in taxes on the Caddy that I will drive maybe 5-6k a year than on both Hyundais that we own that will put at least 30k a year on?

    Also note that I didn't pay anywhere near MSRP for the Caddy. So taxing me on the MSRP would be over taxing me.

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

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If you want to start putting MPG as a category for how you base road tax fees

    I don't think anyone is suggesting a MPG tax. It is a road tax based on each individuals use of those roads. The only scale needed would be one based on vehicle weight. Any vehicle over 2700 lbs taxed at the higher rate :)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote sw-"Thats just as unfair, Me and the wife have three cars, two daily drives and the car for special occasions. Of course the car for special occasions has a MSRP higher than the two daily drive combined yet put on 5-6 times the miles.
    So tell me why should I pay more in taxes on the Caddy that I will drive maybe 5-6k a year than on both Hyundais that we own that will put at least 30k a year on?"-end quote

    Not me talking - it's just how Arizona does registration fees now. Fair or not, that's how they do it. It would cost them very little to just add another fee in there.

    At least that way, it's not charging people more for doing nothing but driving a high MPG car.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gagrice-"I don't think anyone is suggesting a MPG tax."-end quote

    Maybe you are not suggesting it, but anyone who supports the tax we are talking about is suggesting it.

    It is indeed a MPG tax if you start taxing hybrids because they get higher MPG which seems to me is the whole issue here.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    I don't make wagers unless I know I can win. Traction control is NOT stability control. So.. Corolla has the option for enhanced safety but you can't get it on ANY sedans in the Chevy store. Thanks GM!!!

    Oh..back to highway taxes. I've changed my mind. How about 2 bucks a gallon and cleaner rest stops.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    This has nothing to do with aiding Toyota or Honda in selling their vehicles. As both you and larsb stated the Prius' and HCH sell themselves. Why the credit?

    My example: My '00 4c Camry runs perfectly w/ 58K on it and gets me 33 mpg everyday all day long. I'm selling it to a person coming out of a '95 V6 smoker that's going to die any minute. The Camry will stay on the road for 10+ yrs and save some one a good amount of money in doing so. My future Prius is replacing a '95 V6 smoker that was getting in the low/mid teens mpg.

    It has nothing to do with supporting HonYota it has to do with the United States of America using less fuel. The Congress and President think this is a valid goal and I am in agreement wholeheartedly. While my Camry, which was paid off, only cost me fuel and insurance I am willing to spend some of my money to help get less efficient vehicles off the road.

    If there was a better vehicle to do this in the lineups of GM/Ford/DC I would consider it ( I've owned 2 of each maker ). But there isnt at this time.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    No beef with the state of AZ there since I live in IL and vehicle registration fees are the same across the board (unless you have certain specialty plates).

    But you said to tax based on MSRP for road use taxes. That is just as unfair (or fair depending on your point of view) as taxing hybrids.

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

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    As an alternative to taxing people for gas they don't use, it's more easily workable in AZ because they already have people accustomed to paying fees based on MSRP.

    So I guess I'm merely saying than in AZ, a gas tax based on MSRP would be an easier pill to swallow for most people who live here.

    Anything that taxes EVERYONE based on EQUAL footing ( for example everyone who paid $25,000 for a Prius pays the same road tax as everyone else who paid $25,000 for a Prius) is superior and more fair than something which taxes certain groups and leaves other groups untaxed.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    This is a similar argument to the 'Prius or HCH cannot justify their existence versus a Yaris or Fit or Accent, etc.'

    If a person wants a midsized ultra fuel efficient vehicle then that person shouldnt be forced into a stripped econobox. The two hybrids are also significantly more efficient than the latter 3.

    I too was a NYC resident for 30 years, DrFill. If I'm not mistaken there was a program back in the late 70's 80's to induce owners to get clunkers off the road in order to improve the quality of the air. I think it was something like $500-1000 to drive it in/tow it in to get it crushed.

    IMO this is a perfect valid way to spend our tax dollars in order to get old inefficient vehicles off the road.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Well I for one am strongly opposed to any tax breaks of any kind and I think that a hybrid should stand on its own merits and not get any tax credits.

    As for efficient yes they are more fuel efficient than say an Accent, but not more cost efferent. There are many midsize cars whose price make them more cost efficient that a Prius even considering the high gas mileage of the Prius. But thats for a different forum.

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

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Anything that taxes EVERYONE based on EQUAL footing

    Actually it would place everyone on equal footing, don't want the extra tax don't buy a hybrid. But if you say thats not being on an equal footing then the tax credit that hybrids enjoy should be eliminated due to it not putting everyone on equal footing. Can't have it both ways.

    is superior and more fair than something which taxes certain groups and leaves other groups untaxed.

    But we already have taxes like that, how come you don't speak out about them. Is it because it taxes someone else and not you? I guess its ok to tax certain groups of people as long as its not "me".

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

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    woes in here, howsabouthat?

    FOCUS people:

    tax incentives not the topic.
    fairness of all the world's tax programs not the topic.

    Is it a good idea, or FAIR, to increase taxes for hybrid owners simply BECAUSE their cars get higher gas mileage?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    I acknowledge your opposition but as a former NYC resident for 30+ yrs I cannot justify sending more and more money to the families of those who attacked us.

    You may have a different opinion.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "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."

    No, they are not. The ROAD TAX goes to pay for the roads. The vehicle getting better mileage (hybrid) is paying LESS in road taxes despite using the roads the same amount. The cost to build that road, or maintain that road, has absolutely ZERO to do with the gas mileage of the cars that use it.

    Look at it another way:

    Let's assume that the gas taxes were eliminated completely. Let's assume that the road taxes WERE based purely on the number of miles driven and vehicle weight. Under the current gas tax scenario, a 3000lb. non-hybrid getting 25mpg will pay $16.00 in total (federal/state/local) gas taxes to drive 1000 miles (with a total gas tax burden of $0.40/gallon). A 3000 lb. hybrid getting 50mpg will pay half the taxes ($8.00) to drive the same 1000 miles.

    IF your road taxes were based on mileage driven and vehicle weight (which you've said you would support), then the hybrid owners could easily see a DOUBLING of their road taxes to be 'equal' to the typical non-hybrid.

    Question - does anyone know just how much additional tax is actually being proposed for hybrid owners? Somehow, I doubt that a doubling of the tax rate is being proposed.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    " I cannot justify sending more and more money to the families of those who attacked us."

    A bit of a sidetrack but....

    True, the hijackers flying planes in the the WTC were Saudi's.......but that doesn't mean they were of the House of Saud (recepients of our oil dollars). For the most part they were individuals who wanted the ruling class (House of Saud) overthrown. That was the entire POINT of the attack on the WTC: entice the U.S. into an overblown response leading to uprisings of the Arab street throughout the Mideast and overthrow of any/all governments friendly to the U.S.

    So, in effect, we are sending our oil dollars to the ENEMIES of those who attacked us.

    By your logic (the hijackers are were all Saudi's and therefore family members of the House of Saud), then all American's are related to the House of Bush. And that is certainly not the case.

    And now back to our regularly scheduled program.....
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    The road taxes paid in the USA since the inception of the road tax has been 100% fair up to NOW. Millions and Millions of drivers have combined for some astronomically huge number of miles driven and gallons used since 1956.

    In that whole time, EVERY SINGLE DRIVER has paid the same thing: that amount of taxes which were collected by the consumption of fuel their vehicles used.

    Completely equal. No attention needed to be paid to how many MPG any vehicle got, because it's ALL THE SAME TO EVERYONE: you pay for the road tax based on the amount of fuel you purchase.

    This disctinction is important:

    Not the amount you CONSUME. The amount you PURCHASE.

    If you just so happen to consume MORE than the average person, then that means you DRIVE MORE and have PAID THEREFORE an appropriately FAIR amount based on the amount of Gallons YOU HAVE paid for.

    That system has worked for 50 years. Now, in 2005, since we as a country are consuming LESS fuel, the system needs tweaking.

    If you are going to say the "fair way" is to charge people by the miles they drive, that's just fine. I agree that's fair - charge EVERY driver by the miles they drive. Don't say "people who have the foresight and common sense to drive a fuel efficient vehicle need to pay an EXTRA amount of tax."

    The "unfair" way would be to say "person A uses less fuel so they should pay more." What kind of logic is that? Not logical at all, that's what.

    Conversation between me and a Congressman proposing "hybrid owners pay more gas tax:"

    Me: Say Wha?

    He: I said, "the person who uses LESS fuel SHOULD pay more."

    Me: What?

    He: Since they get better gas mileage, we should charge them MORE.

    Me: Oh, yeah, good luck with convincing people that's fair.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    No. since you say it is unfair to tax a group simply because of the car they drive (taxing hybrids) I can bring up examples of it being done elsewhere (taxing luxury cars). If it is unfair for one, it is unfair for the other. Likewise for tax incentives (which are a bad ideal for anything).

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

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If you are going to say the "fair way" is to charge people by the miles they drive, that's just fine. I agree that's fair - charge EVERY driver by the miles they drive. Don't say "people who have the foresight and common sense to drive a fuel efficient vehicle need to pay an EXTRA amount of tax."

    That is EXACTLY what is being discussed. Charging to use the highway system by the mile. No difference for a hybrid driver or a non hybrid driver. The system being used in Oregon is taxation by the mile. That eliminates the regular gas tax. You just pay for the miles you drive. I don't see how anything could be more fair than that. Then if you have an electric car plugged into your house or a CNG car hooked into the gas line coming into your house, you are still taxed to use the roads like everyone else. No free lunch for anyone.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    I am not saying hybrids are bad, all I am saying is that they should stand on their own merits which they can. I am just against tax credits for ANYTHING. Tax credits usually do more harm than good. Unless you want a half hour economics lesson I will leave it at that.

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

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gary-"That is EXACTLY what is being discussed. Charging to use the highway system by the mile."-end quote

    I *WISH* that were exactly what is being discussed. It's NOT. Here is a quote from the article which generated this thread:

    "...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."
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Not the amount you CONSUME. The amount you PURCHASE.

    There is a difference?

    Completely equal.

    Actually it wasn't, again more fuel efficient cars actually paid less.

    If you just so happen to consume MORE than the average person, then that means you DRIVE MORE and have PAID THEREFORE an appropriately FAIR amount based on the amount of Gallons YOU HAVE paid for.

    Wrong. Just because you used more gas than someone else doesn't mean you have driven more miles. I can consume more gas in my Caddy than in my Hyundai but drive less. So you see people don't pay an appropriately fair amount based on MILES DRIVEN. Some people pay less some more all the while exerting the same amount of wear and tear on the roads. Is that fair? No it isn't.

    I said it before and I will say it again. It is impossible to have a fair tax because someone somewhere is going to have their ox gouged.

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

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    About Oregon, what about out of state drivers?

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

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Under the current system, which has worked JUST FINE since 1956, people have always paid an appropriately FAIR amount based on the amount of Gallons they have purchased.

    Once you start charging people more tax for gallons they HAVE NOT purchased, the fairness goes away.
  • gteegtee Member Posts: 179
    According to the logic of US government hybrids should be taxed because they don't consume as much fuel as they should and therefore are not taxed enough. Well my no-hybrid car gets worst gas millage in the city then on the freeway. According to this logic, I overpay for driving in the city.

    The traffic is also bad around here, and I spend a considerable amount of time sitting in traffic without moving at all. This consumes gas, therefore I pay tax and I don't get to use the road because the traffic does not move. And don't get me started on tax refunds for rapid acceleration which really uses up gas.

    I want my tax refund from the Government because I overpay.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It is more than the fear of hybrids not paying a fair share of the road tax. It includes diesel, electric, CNG etc. The legislators have not paid much attention until the growing interest in alternatives started to proliferate.

    Think about this. You are a tax man and you see that big sign that is showing how many millions of gallons of gas are being saved. You immediately equate that to how many dollars of tax revenue are being lost. The braggadocio of the hybrid community probably made many in Congress aware of the lost revenue.

    The bottom line is the roads & bridges need work. I am not against any plan that fairly shares that burden.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    The bottom line is the roads & bridges need work. I am not against any plan that fairly shares that burden.

    Thats the problem, no matter what tax plan you present someone will 1.) end up getting the short end of the stick, 2.) find a way to make it benefit their friends and cronies or 3.) find away to evade the tax.

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

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gary-"The braggadocio of the hybrid community probably made many in Congress aware of the lost revenue."

    Toyota, marketing the green-ness of the HSD system with the billboard, is not "the hybrid community" and they were not "bragging" - they were ADVERTISING.

    PS
    My dear old grandad also always told me wisely, "It ain't braggin' if'n you can do it."
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    and they were not "bragging" - they were ADVERTISING.

    Their advertising has caught the attention of the tax collectors. The Toyota ads saying 50% of all our cars & trucks will be hybrids did nothing to ease the fears of lost revenue. You only look at it from the pretty green fields and nice smelling air. Our government has many tentacles. The one that fixes the highways can care less about the one that is trying to clean up the air.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gagrice-"Their advertising has caught the attention of the tax collectors."-end quote

    Nope, wrong Gary. That's just an incorrect statement.

    This "Tax by the mile" thing is OLD, many months, maybe a year or more old.

    The Toyota billboard in California went up within the last two weeks.

    Not connected. At all.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "The road taxes paid in the USA since the inception of the road tax has been 100% fair up to NOW."

    No, they haven't. They've never been fair.

    We are talking about road taxes, correct? A 'fair' road tax would be one in which the amount of tax paid was directly related to the road usage. A 'fair' road tax would collect revenue based purely on miles driven and wear inflicted. The gas tax does not do this, therefore the gas tax has never been 100% fair. The best thing about the gas tax is it is easy to implement and easy to collect the tax. And when it was first implemented back in the mid-50's, there was a fairly good relationship between the amount of fuel consumed and the miles driven/wear inflicted.

    But times change.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    This "Tax by the mile" thing is OLD, many months, maybe a year or more old

    Actually it was tossed around in the late 1990s when the EV-1 was going to be the saviour of the air in CA.

    What I meant was that it was another reminder of lost revenue. A very in your face reminder.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    THIS JUST IN!!!

    NY Legislature is possibly thinking of taxing skinny people MORE because they buy less taxable sweets and fast food. Ya see... in Manhattan everyone is on this health kick and NYC has discovered that tax revenues from fast food/sweets etc have been diminishing. The thin/healthy people are extremely angry because now they are going to be taxed much more. Make sense???? Sure it does... it makes as much sense as what you folks have been chattering about for the last two days.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    It does make sense. I wonder how they are going to track how many miles I ride on my bike? Or..that city sidewalk I go on every day. I tend to walk a little heavy. Perhaps I may fall in a fat tax bracket because I'm a little too heavy on the city sidewalks.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Have any of you figured out how this will be implemented? The roads I drive on 90% of the time are maintained by the state/county. I will support the interstate system only to the extent that I use it. Only way to accomplish that is a toll system. Tolls SLOW interstate commerce. So...we're back to square one. Anyone else have any bright ideas??
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    will support the interstate system only to the extent that I use it.

    I hate to pop your bubble. Most of your gas tax is going to the Feds now. Mileage tracking is simple. Record the mileage each time you get your new license tags. It is a second grade math problem. Add 2 cents a mile to your license fees and it is done. Send a penny per mile to the Feds and put a penny in the local road fund.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    What is also simple though - is this mileage tax will completely do away with the incentive to drive a Hybrid, or small car. May as well get an Excursion, cause the tax will be the same, and to hell with saving fuel now! Currently, the tax has a conservation effect directly linked to the gas purchased and consumed. It is partially what has spawned the conservation movement. Do you really want to throw that away and charge by the mile?
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Absolutely WRONG. The state/local taxes are higher than the Fed Tax.

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/

    Please PLEASE post accurate information.

    Record the mileage each time you get your new license tags. It is a second grade math problem.

    How many people are going to be honest about that?
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    I am in agreement Gary. I just don't see a logistical way of how it will be executed. By the time (IF) this is instituted I doubt you'll be driving (you'll be on the 9th green mostly). They're saying 10-15 yrs.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Very poor analogy, very poor indeed. With the case of hybrids they still cause the same amount of road damage but pay less in taxes. Your analogy is not the same.

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

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Please PLEASE post accurate information.

    Not all states are equal. Alaska only charges 8 cents per gallon. It would be interesting to see if the states that charge the most have the best roads.

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html
  • jrdwyerjrdwyer Member Posts: 168
    If the system needs to be changed to generate the necessary taxes for road work, then I'm all in favor of tax by the mile. It wouldn't be that difficult for the state DOT to record odometer mileage once a year when registrations are renewed. The states and feds could work out the money split.

    Gasoline tax is only a very small part of the total cost per mile calculation. Many people, including myself, have been purchasing small, fuel efficient vehicles for years to save money. As a consequence of this, we have curbed gasoline consumption. This will continue, regardless of how road taxes are tallied.

    I find it strange that hybrid owners are so vocal or proud about conserving gasoline.
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    Hybrids do not cause any more damage than any other 3000 lb car. This issue is NOT about hybrids, but about a mileage tax in general. You DO realize I was joking about my previous post regarding walking on the sidewalk.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Unless you and your bike weigh 2500 pounds I don't think its much of an issue.

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

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    What is also simple though - is this mileage tax will completely do away with the incentive to drive a Hybrid, or small car.

    How so? the incentive to drive a hybrid is a lower fuel bill, a mileage tax will effect everyone so you still have fuel savings as an incentive.

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

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    Hybrids do not cause any more damage than any other 3000 lb car.

    And I never said they did.

    You DO realize I was joking about my previous post regarding walking on the sidewalk.

    Yes I did but you you used it as an analogy for what we were talking about and it is a poor analogy.

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

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Hybrids do not cause any more damage than any other 3000 lb car."

    Absolutely correct. Theoretically, they cause the SAME damage as a 3000 lb non-hybrid car. So why do you think they should pay less tax per mile?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    You like analogies? Try this one:

    Instead of a tax on gas to pay for road construction/maintenance, imagine if tires were taxed instead. Now imagine a manufacturer developing a tire that lasted 5 times longer than normal tires for the same price as a regular tire. Would it be 'fair' that folks with these type of tires only paid 20% of the road tax that other folks paid?
  • falcononefalconone Member Posts: 1,726
    How does a hybrid pay less tax now? They comprise .75% of total cars on the road. I think people are miffed that hybrids get tax credits and non hybrid decent mileage vehicles get squat. Too bad. Blame the government. In the meantime, IF I do buy a hybrid, I'll get ~3k from Uncle Sam, a $500 car allowance from my employer and possible incentives from NYS. Oh... I can also drive in the HOV lanes if I have to. Gotta love it.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,438
    FWIW Tires are taxed.

    To answer your question no it would not be fair, but it would also not be fair to tax them more. My point is there is NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR TAX, it simply doesn't exists. No matter what you do someone will get the short end of the stick.

    I am not advocating a tax on hybrids just explaining 1.) the logic behind it and 2.) that you will never have a fair tax. Plain and simple.

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

This discussion has been closed.