Very good arguments can be made that the amount a person pays for highway maintenance/construction should be proportional to the amount he utilizes these highways, but there will always be flaws.
What about the person who does a large portion of his driving on toll roads? The miles that this person drives on roads he is supporting with tolls should not count against him in determining how much he should pay for the non-toll roads. In that sense our current system is just as unfair to the toll road driver as it is to the low mpg driver.
Another inequity. There are a lot of economies of scale involved in road maintenance. A road that 5,000 people travel on each day will not cost the government 10x as much as a road that 500 people travel on. So, on a per capita basis, the people that utilize these less travelled roads have a disproportionately high impact on the government's cost for road maintenance.
By using less gas thereby paying less tax per mile driven. The same goes for a car that gets 35 MPH over a car that gets 30 MPG. The same goes for person 'A' that floors it each time the light turns green as opposed to person 'B' in the same model car that does a nice easy acceleration.
In the meantime, IF I do buy a hybrid, I'll get ~3k from Uncle Sam,
Ok so are you one of those who 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
They pay less tax per mile driven for the same reason that ANY high mpg vehicle pays less tax per mile driven. Since the tax is based on gasoline consumed, and they consume less gas per mile, THEREFORE they pay less tax per mile.
"They comprise .75% of total cars on the road."
Yes. So what happens 5-10 years from now when they comprise 75% of the cars on the road? And gas tax revenues are in the toilet, and the roads are in even WORSE shape? Would you still claim that hybrids are still paying their 'fair' share?
I know. The lion's share of those taxes/fees go towards tire disposal. I don't know that any of those current taxes go towards road construction/maintenance.
"My point is there is NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR TAX, it simply doesn't exists."
Again, correct. However, some methods are somewhat more 'fair' than others. Also, some methods are much more practical to implement than others. The gas tax was very easy to implement, very easy to adjust, and easy to collect.
However, just because you can never get a tax which is 100% 'fair' to everyone, that doesn't mean you can't make an effort to make the tax fairer.
"What about the person who does a large portion of his driving on toll roads?"
With computerized records and EZ Pass, I would think it would be fairly straightforward to have toll road mileage subtracted out of a driver's overall mileage.
Or with GPS recorders, it should be easy to record independent mileage totals for different types of roads (toll, federal, state, local, etc.) and have the taxes divied up accordingly.
quote-"Yes. So what happens 5-10 years from now when they comprise 75% of the cars on the road? And gas tax revenues are in the toilet, and the roads are in even WORSE shape? Would you still claim that hybrids are still paying their 'fair' share?"-end quote
first of all, 75% is a ridiculous number. No one in their right mind thinks Hybrids can even get to 30%, much less 75%.
Second of all, the highway tax code will be rewritten NOT because of hybrids (right now 250,000 registrations out of 230 million registrations in the USA) but because DEMAND and GAS USAGE AS A WHOLE will go down because people are buying higher MPG cars and ditching the SUVs. The idiotic SUV era is ending, thank gosh.
States might and probably will adjust their road taxes within the next 2-3 years.
But it's not Hybrids which are the primary cause of the lowered revenue - they just make a good target. If anything, it's the higher gas prices from the hurricanes that have caused people to rethink all their "driving waste" and the trend to smaller cars.
If states want to put GPS units in ALL CARS and charge ALL CARS a road tax based on mileage, then that's fine with me and will probably pass the legislature and even a vote by the people.
But charging high MPG cars just BECAUSE they get good gas mileage, and NOT charging other cars, that's unfair, stupid, ridiculous, discriminatory, and will not likely pass anything anywhere.
Let’s for a moment make believe hybrids don’t exist. Instead, all of a sudden we started creating nice fuel efficient cars that easily attained 40MPG on the highway. As a matter of fact, that’s entirely possible. Look at the Honda Civic HX, Toyota Yaris/Echo, VW TDI. All those cars can easily get 40 MPG. How stupid is the government that they institute CAFÉ standards and realize that the better FE means lower revenues. What is going to happen when ULSD becomes widely available and fuel efficient diesels come to our shores? Hybrids will NEVER comprise 75% of the market. No way in hell!! At most, they may eventually reach a 5% penetration. What happens to the people buying french fry oil and using it as a fuel source. They don’t pay ANY tax now. You can debate this till you run out of breath. The bottom line is that the government operates at a snail’s pace. Nothing will happen for at least ten years.
Well then the obvious solution is to junk the entire gas tax system in place now and go to a mileage based system. Heck, all we need is a system in the car's computer that records the mileage since the last refueling. When you stop to refuel, the pump reads the mileage since the last refueling, resets the mileage recorder, and figures the appropriate road tax. Would you agree that this would be the 'fairest' practical system?
Even fairer can be very subjective, what may be fairer to someone may not be to someone else. I think the thing to do is get the system that is easiest to implement and collect and that satisfies the greatest number of people.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let's not penalize drivers of hybrids who are trying to do the right thing.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study the other day with some warnings about the nation's roads and bridges. Basically, current funding sources are inadequate and will deteriorate.
One specific solution offered, however, goes opposite to the direction the country needs. That idea is to find a new tax to target hybrid vehicles and, some day, electric cars. Why? They use less gas or, in theory, no gas. That means less paid in gas taxes.
The bigger picture, however, is that using less gas is good for the country. It means less money going overseas and less pollution in our lungs. The government should, if anything, promote this, not hinder it.
Beyond that, the study does raise several valid points about the nation's "decaying roads and bridges, and the inadequate transportation infrastructure that are costing the U.S. economy billions in productivity" and a "funding shortfall that immediately threatens national mobility."
The chamber finds:
- "Current revenues ... fall far short of what is needed to maintain or improve existing infrastructure" half a trillion dollars in the next 10 years.
- The federal motor fuel tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993 and isn't indexed for inflation, so inflation alone means that money only goes two-thirds as far as it did 12 years ago.
- While it costs a driver about 60 cents a mile to maintain and operate a vehicle, less than a penny of that goes for federal fuel taxes. The chamber says adding half a cent to that would fully fund federal obligations to highway and transit systems.
The report suggests spending more highway money on highways a long-standing problem and suggests the federal government nudge states toward different ways of paying for roads. The fuel tax has been in place for 60 years, and the authors of the study point out that it would take a good deal of public discussion to change that.
Fair enough, and there's enough here to begin a serious debate. But let's not penalize drivers of hybrids who are willing to spend up front to save gas and improve the nation's security."
Using EZ pass records wouldn't work in Illinois. The Illinois Tollway works differently than most others. Most entrances and exits don't have a toll booth. Take I-88 in Illinois for example. at Rt 59 you can get on going east or west without going through a toll booth. Going east or west from there (until you reach the toll booth that is on the roadway itself) getting on the Tollway going away from Rt 59 does not require going through a toll booth, but getting off will. Now getting on the Tollway going to Rt 59 will require going through a toll both but not getting off.
So in short using the records from a EZ pass type thing (Called the I-pass in Illinois) many times you wouldn't be able to tell where someone entered or exited the Tollway (or both).
As for the GPS transponder there would be much resistance to it for privacy issues (big brother is watching you).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
First - a quibble. An editorial is NOT a news story. Okay, I got that out of my system.
Second - "The federal motor fuel tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993 and isn't indexed for inflation, so inflation alone means that money only goes two-thirds as far as it did 12 years ago."
Excellent point. Rather than establishing the gas taxes as a set $/gal, why aren't the gas taxes set as a %/gal?
Excellent point. Rather than establishing the gas taxes as a set $/gal, why aren't the gas taxes set as a %/gal?
Then it becomes a consumption tax on the consumption of gas, i.e. as price goes up so does the tax. Basically it becomes pretty much a sales tax.
At a certain $/gal it is more of a use tax, that is as long as your use of the roads stays the same (you don't drive more or less) the amount taxed stays the same. The more you drive the more you pay, the less you drive the less you pay.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
no no no, that's fine; we all have our calling....
On a serious note - I realize that no tax system (whether it's income or sales or gas or whatever) will ever be 100% 'fair' simply because we can't all even agree on what IS 'fair'. At the same time, some additional revenues MUST be found to adequately fund federal/state/local highways.
There are a number of 'solutions' - ALL can be considered to be 'unfair' to someone. The reflexive solution is to simply add some more to the current gas tax. Then the only discussion is 'how much'. But I think it IS beneficial to at least occasionally examine the system as a whole and disuss "is this really the best way to fund highways or is a different system possibly better?".
But charging high MPG cars just BECAUSE they get good gas mileage, and NOT charging other cars, that's unfair, stupid, ridiculous, discriminatory, and will not likely pass anything anywhere.
I think we are very close to agreeing on this issue. I also agree the demand may be going down a bit. The roads however will still deteriorate with heavy or light traffic. Many road experts consider the weather a bigger factor than the vehicles using the roads. It would be tough to tax the weather so we get to pay the bills.
An across the board mileage tax could have the added benefit of cutting miles driven. If a person starts thinking that I get dinged for every mile I drive, they may cut back some. Just a thought.
The reflexive solution is to simply add some more to the current gas tax.
That would be the simplist solution as the tax is already in place with an established collection system. Any other solution would require building something from the ground up and might have some unforeseen consequences.
Then the only discussion is 'how much'.
My response would be take the current tax and adjust it for inflation (since the last time it was adjusted), tack on a little more to adjust for more fuel efficient cars and maybe to account for future inflation and that should do it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"That would be the simplist solution as the tax is already in place with an established collection system. Any other solution would require building something from the ground up and might have some unforeseen consequences."
Simplest is not necessarily the best by any stretch.
One could say the same in regards to income taxes and the IRS. And like the gas taxes, personally I'm in FAVOR of building something different from the ground up. But that's a different topic altogether.....
Simplest is not necessarily the best by any stretch.
Nor does it eliminate it from being the best. That being said, all things being equal the simpler the better.
As for income taxes, gas taxes are far simpler than income taxes. If we used the income tax as a guide we would be charging high mileage vehicles more in taxes.
Before I would be in favor of building something from the ground up (I would be in favor of that depending on the circumstances) I would want to know what it is, get all the details I could and study it a bit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Why is it that we think that it makes sense for those using the roads to pay for them but don't apply this rational to other government services? A person living in a million dollar house pays 10x the property taxes of someone in a $100k house. Does he really use 10x as much of the school system, law enforcement, and whatever other services these taxes go to? I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of services provided by our government out of the general fund that are not utilized by people in proportion to how they were paid for. So why are the roads any different? Because over a period of time we have been taught to believe they are different. The fact is that in a lot of cases it really isn't any different as far as local/state governments are concerned. These gas taxes often times make it into the general fund and end up being used for programs that have little if anything to do with roadways. The federal portion of the gas tax gets distributed to the states as block grants, which aren't necessarily proportional to how much that state kicked in. It has become an effective way to distribute "pork" and to coerce states into complying with federal policy. I remember a few years back when the feds threatened to withold highway funds if Nevada raised its speed limits. The point I am making is let's just do away with the notion of fuel taxes being earmarked for a specific purpose and learn to think of them as the general consumption taxes that they are. They should probably be pegged to a gallon of gas rather than a percentage of price do to the wild fluctuations that would be disruptive to projecting government revenue.
Well said. I think the feds should REALLY get out of our life. Way too much control. Each state should be responsible for ALL roads within its boundaries. The feds can relinquish control to the states and then they won't have to worry about it. If it were at the state level, it may be more manageable. Just a thought.
like the best thing you can do for your country is to go get a lightweight car that guzzles. That way, the light weight of the car does minimal damage to the roads (although when you factor in big trucks, buses, etc it's foolish to think that a 4000 lb car would do any more damage than a 2000 lb one), yet you get taxed on all the additional fuel you burn, so you can line the pockets of the gov't! Wow, what a privilege! :P
A person living in a million dollar house pays 10x the property taxes of someone in a $100k house. Does he really use 10x as much of the school system, law enforcement, and whatever other services these taxes go to?
It is rare that a million dollar home is in the same taxing district as a 100k home. But anyway to answer your question maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that if they have one kid in a public school they are using far more than I am of the school system (which is currently zero). Other goods such as police protection are called merit goods and are very hard, if not impossible, to tax directly. And some are merit goods which= is impossible to tax directly or prevent someone from enjoying.
A road use tax can be a direct tax and can be made so with little effort.
I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of services provided by our government out of the general fund that are not utilized by people in proportion to how they were paid for.
many of those services are such that it is impossible to determine how much someone used.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Are you saying that if taxes can be applied directly based on use they should be? Your example of school use would be a very simple one to implement, much simpler than road use. I don't see it happening. For all the others, like law enforcement, let's assume everyone gets equal value out of them and spread the cost evenly. Again, it won't happen. Whether you agree or not it is generally accepted that the wealthy should shoulder more of the burden for government services. I guess that I'm just wondering why and how building/maintaining roads has achieved a different status.
Before anyone gets the idea that I am a supporter of some wealth re-distribution scheme, I am not. I believe in a flat tax, preferrably a consumption tax. Someone that earns or consumes twice as much will pay twice as much in taxes. I then believe that one of the governments obligations is to use some of their revenue to provide its citizens with an efficient, well maintained transportation network.
Are you saying that if taxes can be applied directly based on use they should be?
No just that in the examples given the taxes cannot be directly charged to the party that benefits based on the benefit.
The example of the school is not as cut and dry as it would seem. Sure you can charge the student directly but they are not the only ones that benefit. One example of indirect beneficiaries are employers who get a better trained employee (or so they do in theory).
For all the others, like law enforcement, let's assume everyone gets equal value out of them and spread the cost evenly.
But for the others, we cannot assume that everyone gets equal treatment because they don't. High crime areas tend to get more police presence than low crime areas. Also certain police activities have priority over others. Police will respond slower to a fender bender than to a bank robbery.
I guess that I'm just wondering why and how building/maintaining roads has achieved a different status.
because it is a different animal, through various means it is possible to determine just how much road use a vehicle uses. Indirect beneficiaries would pay their share of that through increased costs for the goods or services that go over the road. A direct tax is far more feesable than in many other government endevours.
As for the consumption tax there are plenty of problems with it, but since this is not the forum for it and that I don't want to give an hour long econ lecture on the laws of supply and demand and the effect taxes have on them I will leave it at that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"As for the consumption tax there are plenty of problems with it"
A road use tax is definitely a form of a consumption tax.
I'm not sure why this has suddenly became a hot topic. My understanding is that average fuel efficiency in the US is less than it was 20 yrs ago. As a nation we are driving 2-3% more miles per year therefore fuel tax revenue should be rising accordingly. Maybe its because the guy in his 12 mpg truck is resentful that he pays 4x as much for road maintenance as the person in his 48 mpg Prius. Well the person in the Prius is probably resentful of the truck owner for using 4x as much gas, which disproportionately impacts the supply, driving up the price of gas for everyone. This truck driver is also pumping 4x as much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Both a road use tax and higher fuel taxes will generate revenue. The expected consequences of these taxes are. A road use tax will discourage driving, which will reduce CO2 production but to a lesser extent since the cost per mile will not be as closely tied to fuel efficiency. A higher fuel tax will discourage driving, CO2 production and create a marketplace incentive for manufacturers to offer cleaner cars more efficient vehicles. If I had to choose between the two I'd opt for the one that offered multiple benefits.
A road use tax is definitely a form of a consumption tax.
No since you do not "consume" the road but use it it is a use tax. Since after you drive down the road it is still there it is not consumed. In other words more than one person can use the road over and over again. So in reality a road use tax is a use tax.
I'm not sure why this has suddenly became a hot topic. My understanding is that average fuel efficiency in the US is less than it was 20 yrs ago. As a nation we are driving 2-3% more miles per year therefore fuel tax revenue should be rising accordingly.
I would have presumed that fuel economy has gone up, but I don't know either way. If we are driving 2-3% more per year we should be causing 2-3% more damage per year to the roads. The problem is is that the road use tax is set as a certain amount per gallon and has remand unchanged for some time now. But we have had inflation since the last time the tax was set, so that even with more road usage the amount of tax collected is much less after you adjust it for inflation.
Both a road use tax and higher fuel taxes will generate revenue.
I would say one is ok but don't have both. Both taxes will discourage driving but to be honest it won't have much an effect on how many miles everyone drives. The demand for driving is very inelastic (in other words a large increase in the cost of driving results in a small decrease in driving).
As for incentives to build more efficient cars, the best one is driver demand for them. As long as the overall costs of a hybrid is equal to, or more than, a non-hybrid then there will be little incentive for a driver to buy one.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"A road use tax is definitely a form of a consumption tax."
Actually, I would agree with this IF by 'road use tax' we are referring to the current gas tax. The amount of tax paid is directly related to the amount of gas consumed. Yes, I know that the tax collected goes towards road construction/maintenance but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the tax (gas tax) is a consumption tax or not.
I think most would agree that sales taxes are (in general) consumption taxes. IOW - consume more, pay more taxes. But the tax revenue generated isn't necessarily going towards something the taxpayer uses (or consumes). They just go into the government's general revenues.
Not sure why you're including hybrids in your argument. This has to do with a gas tax per mile and nothing with hybrids. Hybrid road usage is now .0001532%.
Hybrids were included because the person I was replying to mentioned using taxes in drive up the demand for more fuel efficient cars. I disagree with that statement and used hybrids as an example.
Now unless hybrid owners are keeping their hybrids in the garage and driving something else your figure on hybrid road usage is a fraction of what it would really be.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If this is ever instituted, I wonder how motorcycles will be assessed. It may also open up a black market to people that want to roll back their odometers. I doubt that, but some people are petty. I'm willing to pay whatever is necessary to keep our roads in good condition. The problem lies with the wisdom of our elected officials. They may decide to take the road tax money to subsidize social security. Sometimes, I wish I can just live on my own private island!!! :confuse:
"Considering proposals for longer-term revenues, the study’s authors ran short of ideas. Among them was one that would impose a vehicle fee on the owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles. The argument for that, the report said, is that hybrid drivers should bear their fair share of the cost of filling potholes and fixing bridges, regardless of what kind of fuel they use.
Slow down just a minute. That sounds like some of the illogical thinking about conservation that found its way into the recently enacted federal energy policy. That policy mentioned the importance of energy independence and conservation, but put little premium on either.
Hybrid drivers are paying more for their cars to get better fuel economy. In the long run, they will conserve both their own dollars and the nation’s growing dependence on foreign oil. They are helping reduce demand for fuel, which eventually will reduce prices. Let’s not penalize them with a federal vehicle fee for their conservation efforts.
With the Highway Trust Fund headed for financial hard times, the clearest way to shore it up is to raise the federal gasoline tax. But no one in Washington wants to talk about such a politically unpopular move.
"The argument for that, the report said, is that hybrid drivers should bear their fair share of the cost of filling potholes and fixing bridges, regardless of what kind of fuel they use."
I noticed that the opinion piece did not even attempt to refute this argument. Instead, it went off on a tangent about energy independence and conservation and 'penalizing' them for conservation efforts. I'm still trying to figure out how energy independence and conservation helps to pay for road maintenance.
WHY PAYING "USE FUEL" TAXES IS GOOD FOR EV DRIVERS
Why did Toyota cancel the RAV4, Why did GM cancel and recall the EV-1, why is CARB backing off on requirements. No new CAFE requirements. Do you think it might be because of the money involved?
Lets look at the money flows:
Manufacturer sells car, gets paid, makes reasonable profit, is happy. (they'd never admit it though) EV driver buys car, saves on ownership costs, is happy. Government reduces costs of pollution, defense, etc, but also reduces tax revenue by 50 cents a gallon not consumed, is not happy. About 80 or so years ago, the people asked Government to provide the service and care of the roads and highways of this nation. The Government responded and said yes with one stipulation. Where is the money coming from to do this? We responded with acceptance of both Federal and State road taxes. In the recent past, sales taxes were also added to the package.
Back in the 70s GM offered a propane engine. It was available for 6 months and then suddenly it was unobtainium. What happened? The government realized it wasn't getting it's gas tax revenue. The government offers incentives to automakers to build factories to create jobs in their area for payroll tax. They have a bunch of bean counters who look at the projected tax revenue from each source and the impact each policy has on that revenue. They are required to do this as a part of their bond selling activities.
So we will never have plentiful EVs from a major manufacturer, or even reasonable responses from our government entities on most matters regarding EVs. They want to know "where is their money?" How will they keep the roads maintained (and all the other things that 50 cents a gallon pays for).
We will never have plentiful EVs until we find a way to make our government a partner in this venture instead of just an investor. We know that we save them money, but we also reduce their revenue. Lost revenue hits them right away. Savings don't matter until way after the fact, that's just the nature of government finance.
So we need to find a way to pay tax on our cars that the Tax Collector's offices will notice and attribute particularly to EVs. Something that they can account for. Something they can point to and say "Wow, last year our state had 500 EVs and we received 200 dollars each for them in taxes, this year we had 1000 EVs and we received US$200K, how can we increase that number next year?"
When that happens our collective governments will be much more responsive to our needs and requests.
I'd LOVE to see a study which explains how .00111 percent of the cars on the USA roads are responsible for costing the government billions of dollars in lost gas tax revenue.
Silly me, I thought reducing fuel usage and conserving was a GOOD thing....... :mad:
"So showing it as .00106 is completely correct....."
Yep, showing it as .00106 IS completely correct. Which is equal to .106% (which is what I posted).
Except before, you were saying .00106 PERCENT, which would be equal to .0000106.
S'okay, you were only 2 decimal places off (the percent part). Your compatriot had posted a figure of .0001532%, which was only off by 3 decimal points.
"quote rorr-"And reduced cholesteral has as much to do with paying for roads as improved fuel economy."-end quote
Exactly - fuel economy should have NOTHING TO DO with paying for roads.
Hey! We agree again!
So, IF it would be unfair for folks with low cholesteral to pay less in road taxes, wouldn't it also be unfair for folks driving high economy cars to pay less in road taxes (implemented currently as a gas tax)?
Because that is what we have (and HAVE had) for decades: folks driving economy cars have paid less in road taxes. And as YOU'VE just pointed out, fuel economy should have nothing to do with paying for roads.
Is implementing an additional tax JUST on hybrids the 'fairest' solution? Of course not; I never said it was.
Comments
What about the person who does a large portion of his driving on toll roads? The miles that this person drives on roads he is supporting with tolls should not count against him in determining how much he should pay for the non-toll roads. In that sense our current system is just as unfair to the toll road driver as it is to the low mpg driver.
Another inequity. There are a lot of economies of scale involved in road maintenance. A road that 5,000 people travel on each day will not cost the government 10x as much as a road that 500 people travel on. So, on a per capita basis, the people that utilize these less travelled roads have a disproportionately high impact on the government's cost for road maintenance.
By using less gas thereby paying less tax per mile driven. The same goes for a car that gets 35 MPH over a car that gets 30 MPG. The same goes for person 'A' that floors it each time the light turns green as opposed to person 'B' in the same model car that does a nice easy acceleration.
In the meantime, IF I do buy a hybrid, I'll get ~3k from Uncle Sam,
Ok so are you one of those who 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
They pay less tax per mile driven for the same reason that ANY high mpg vehicle pays less tax per mile driven. Since the tax is based on gasoline consumed, and they consume less gas per mile, THEREFORE they pay less tax per mile.
"They comprise .75% of total cars on the road."
Yes. So what happens 5-10 years from now when they comprise 75% of the cars on the road? And gas tax revenues are in the toilet, and the roads are in even WORSE shape? Would you still claim that hybrids are still paying their 'fair' share?
I know. The lion's share of those taxes/fees go towards tire disposal. I don't know that any of those current taxes go towards road construction/maintenance.
"My point is there is NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR TAX, it simply doesn't exists."
Again, correct. However, some methods are somewhat more 'fair' than others. Also, some methods are much more practical to implement than others. The gas tax was very easy to implement, very easy to adjust, and easy to collect.
However, just because you can never get a tax which is 100% 'fair' to everyone, that doesn't mean you can't make an effort to make the tax fairer.
With computerized records and EZ Pass, I would think it would be fairly straightforward to have toll road mileage subtracted out of a driver's overall mileage.
Or with GPS recorders, it should be easy to record independent mileage totals for different types of roads (toll, federal, state, local, etc.) and have the taxes divied up accordingly.
first of all, 75% is a ridiculous number. No one in their right mind thinks Hybrids can even get to 30%, much less 75%.
Second of all, the highway tax code will be rewritten NOT because of hybrids (right now 250,000 registrations out of 230 million registrations in the USA) but because DEMAND and GAS USAGE AS A WHOLE will go down because people are buying higher MPG cars and ditching the SUVs. The idiotic SUV era is ending, thank gosh.
States might and probably will adjust their road taxes within the next 2-3 years.
But it's not Hybrids which are the primary cause of the lowered revenue - they just make a good target. If anything, it's the higher gas prices from the hurricanes that have caused people to rethink all their "driving waste" and the trend to smaller cars.
If states want to put GPS units in ALL CARS and charge ALL CARS a road tax based on mileage, then that's fine with me and will probably pass the legislature and even a vote by the people.
But charging high MPG cars just BECAUSE they get good gas mileage, and NOT charging other cars, that's unfair, stupid, ridiculous, discriminatory, and will not likely pass anything anywhere.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Putting policy in reverse gear
This is a trial balloon best left unlaunched.
Let's not penalize drivers of hybrids who are trying to do the right thing.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study the other day with some warnings about the nation's roads and bridges. Basically, current funding sources are inadequate and will deteriorate.
One specific solution offered, however, goes opposite to the direction the country needs. That idea is to find a new tax to target hybrid vehicles and, some day, electric cars. Why? They use less gas or, in theory, no gas. That means less paid in gas taxes.
The bigger picture, however, is that using less gas is good for the country. It means less money going overseas and less pollution in our lungs. The government should, if anything, promote this, not hinder it.
Beyond that, the study does raise several valid points about the nation's "decaying roads and bridges, and the inadequate transportation infrastructure that are costing the U.S. economy billions in productivity" and a "funding shortfall that immediately threatens national mobility."
The chamber finds:
- "Current revenues ... fall far short of what is needed to maintain or improve existing infrastructure" half a trillion dollars in the next 10 years.
- The federal motor fuel tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993 and isn't indexed for inflation, so inflation alone means that money only goes two-thirds as far as it did 12 years ago.
- While it costs a driver about 60 cents a mile to maintain and operate a vehicle, less than a penny of that goes for federal fuel taxes. The chamber says adding half a cent to that would fully fund federal obligations to highway and transit systems.
The report suggests spending more highway money on highways a long-standing problem and suggests the federal government nudge states toward different ways of paying for roads. The fuel tax has been in place for 60 years, and the authors of the study point out that it would take a good deal of public discussion to change that.
Fair enough, and there's enough here to begin a serious debate. But let's not penalize drivers of hybrids who are willing to spend up front to save gas and improve the nation's security."
So in short using the records from a EZ pass type thing (Called the I-pass in Illinois) many times you wouldn't be able to tell where someone entered or exited the Tollway (or both).
As for the GPS transponder there would be much resistance to it for privacy issues (big brother is watching you).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Second - "The federal motor fuel tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993 and isn't indexed for inflation, so inflation alone means that money only goes two-thirds as far as it did 12 years ago."
Excellent point. Rather than establishing the gas taxes as a set $/gal, why aren't the gas taxes set as a %/gal?
I never called it a "news story." I called it a "web story."
Fair enough.
HEY!!!! We agree on something! Let's make some s'mores!
Then it becomes a consumption tax on the consumption of gas, i.e. as price goes up so does the tax. Basically it becomes pretty much a sales tax.
At a certain $/gal it is more of a use tax, that is as long as your use of the roads stays the same (you don't drive more or less) the amount taxed stays the same. The more you drive the more you pay, the less you drive the less you pay.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
no no no, that's fine; we all have our calling....
On a serious note - I realize that no tax system (whether it's income or sales or gas or whatever) will ever be 100% 'fair' simply because we can't all even agree on what IS 'fair'. At the same time, some additional revenues MUST be found to adequately fund federal/state/local highways.
There are a number of 'solutions' - ALL can be considered to be 'unfair' to someone. The reflexive solution is to simply add some more to the current gas tax. Then the only discussion is 'how much'. But I think it IS beneficial to at least occasionally examine the system as a whole and disuss "is this really the best way to fund highways or is a different system possibly better?".
I think we are very close to agreeing on this issue. I also agree the demand may be going down a bit. The roads however will still deteriorate with heavy or light traffic. Many road experts consider the weather a bigger factor than the vehicles using the roads. It would be tough to tax the weather so we get to pay the bills.
An across the board mileage tax could have the added benefit of cutting miles driven. If a person starts thinking that I get dinged for every mile I drive, they may cut back some. Just a thought.
That would be the simplist solution as the tax is already in place with an established collection system. Any other solution would require building something from the ground up and might have some unforeseen consequences.
Then the only discussion is 'how much'.
My response would be take the current tax and adjust it for inflation (since the last time it was adjusted), tack on a little more to adjust for more fuel efficient cars and maybe to account for future inflation and that should do it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Simplest is not necessarily the best by any stretch.
One could say the same in regards to income taxes and the IRS. And like the gas taxes, personally I'm in FAVOR of building something different from the ground up. But that's a different topic altogether.....
Nor does it eliminate it from being the best. That being said, all things being equal the simpler the better.
As for income taxes, gas taxes are far simpler than income taxes. If we used the income tax as a guide we would be charging high mileage vehicles more in taxes.
Before I would be in favor of building something from the ground up (I would be in favor of that depending on the circumstances) I would want to know what it is, get all the details I could and study it a bit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is rare that a million dollar home is in the same taxing district as a 100k home. But anyway to answer your question maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that if they have one kid in a public school they are using far more than I am of the school system (which is currently zero). Other goods such as police protection are called merit goods and are very hard, if not impossible, to tax directly. And some are merit goods which= is impossible to tax directly or prevent someone from enjoying.
A road use tax can be a direct tax and can be made so with little effort.
I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of services provided by our government out of the general fund that are not utilized by people in proportion to how they were paid for.
many of those services are such that it is impossible to determine how much someone used.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Before anyone gets the idea that I am a supporter of some wealth re-distribution scheme, I am not. I believe in a flat tax, preferrably a consumption tax. Someone that earns or consumes twice as much will pay twice as much in taxes. I then believe that one of the governments obligations is to use some of their revenue to provide its citizens with an efficient, well maintained transportation network.
No just that in the examples given the taxes cannot be directly charged to the party that benefits based on the benefit.
The example of the school is not as cut and dry as it would seem. Sure you can charge the student directly but they are not the only ones that benefit. One example of indirect beneficiaries are employers who get a better trained employee (or so they do in theory).
For all the others, like law enforcement, let's assume everyone gets equal value out of them and spread the cost evenly.
But for the others, we cannot assume that everyone gets equal treatment because they don't. High crime areas tend to get more police presence than low crime areas. Also certain police activities have priority over others. Police will respond slower to a fender bender than to a bank robbery.
I guess that I'm just wondering why and how building/maintaining roads has achieved a different status.
because it is a different animal, through various means it is possible to determine just how much road use a vehicle uses. Indirect beneficiaries would pay their share of that through increased costs for the goods or services that go over the road. A direct tax is far more feesable than in many other government endevours.
As for the consumption tax there are plenty of problems with it, but since this is not the forum for it and that I don't want to give an hour long econ lecture on the laws of supply and demand and the effect taxes have on them I will leave it at that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
A road use tax is definitely a form of a consumption tax.
I'm not sure why this has suddenly became a hot topic. My understanding is that average fuel efficiency in the US is less than it was 20 yrs ago. As a nation we are driving 2-3% more miles per year therefore fuel tax revenue should be rising accordingly. Maybe its because the guy in his 12 mpg truck is resentful that he pays 4x as much for road maintenance as the person in his 48 mpg Prius. Well the person in the Prius is probably resentful of the truck owner for using 4x as much gas, which disproportionately impacts the supply, driving up the price of gas for everyone. This truck driver is also pumping 4x as much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Both a road use tax and higher fuel taxes will generate revenue. The expected consequences of these taxes are. A road use tax will discourage driving, which will reduce CO2 production but to a lesser extent since the cost per mile will not be as closely tied to fuel efficiency. A higher fuel tax will discourage driving, CO2 production and create a marketplace incentive for manufacturers to offer cleaner cars more efficient vehicles. If I had to choose between the two I'd opt for the one that offered multiple benefits.
No since you do not "consume" the road but use it it is a use tax. Since after you drive down the road it is still there it is not consumed. In other words more than one person can use the road over and over again. So in reality a road use tax is a use tax.
I'm not sure why this has suddenly became a hot topic. My understanding is that average fuel efficiency in the US is less than it was 20 yrs ago. As a nation we are driving 2-3% more miles per year therefore fuel tax revenue should be rising accordingly.
I would have presumed that fuel economy has gone up, but I don't know either way. If we are driving 2-3% more per year we should be causing 2-3% more damage per year to the roads. The problem is is that the road use tax is set as a certain amount per gallon and has remand unchanged for some time now. But we have had inflation since the last time the tax was set, so that even with more road usage the amount of tax collected is much less after you adjust it for inflation.
Both a road use tax and higher fuel taxes will generate revenue.
I would say one is ok but don't have both. Both taxes will discourage driving but to be honest it won't have much an effect on how many miles everyone drives. The demand for driving is very inelastic (in other words a large increase in the cost of driving results in a small decrease in driving).
As for incentives to build more efficient cars, the best one is driver demand for them. As long as the overall costs of a hybrid is equal to, or more than, a non-hybrid then there will be little incentive for a driver to buy one.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually, I would agree with this IF by 'road use tax' we are referring to the current gas tax. The amount of tax paid is directly related to the amount of gas consumed. Yes, I know that the tax collected goes towards road construction/maintenance but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the tax (gas tax) is a consumption tax or not.
I think most would agree that sales taxes are (in general) consumption taxes. IOW - consume more, pay more taxes. But the tax revenue generated isn't necessarily going towards something the taxpayer uses (or consumes). They just go into the government's general revenues.
Now unless hybrid owners are keeping their hybrids in the garage and driving something else your figure on hybrid road usage is a fraction of what it would really be.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Considering proposals for longer-term revenues, the study’s authors ran short of ideas. Among them was one that would impose a vehicle fee on the owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles. The argument for that, the report said, is that hybrid drivers should bear their fair share of the cost of filling potholes and fixing bridges, regardless of what kind of fuel they use.
Slow down just a minute. That sounds like some of the illogical thinking about conservation that found its way into the recently enacted federal energy policy. That policy mentioned the importance of energy independence and conservation, but put little premium on either.
Hybrid drivers are paying more for their cars to get better fuel economy. In the long run, they will conserve both their own dollars and the nation’s growing dependence on foreign oil. They are helping reduce demand for fuel, which eventually will reduce prices. Let’s not penalize them with a federal vehicle fee for their conservation efforts.
With the Highway Trust Fund headed for financial hard times, the clearest way to shore it up is to raise the federal gasoline tax. But no one in Washington wants to talk about such a politically unpopular move.
Huh? How in the heck did you come up with THAT number?
I noticed that the opinion piece did not even attempt to refute this argument. Instead, it went off on a tangent about energy independence and conservation and 'penalizing' them for conservation efforts. I'm still trying to figure out how energy independence and conservation helps to pay for road maintenance.
There are either 225 million or 235 million total cars registered in the USA
250,000 is .00106 percent of 235 million
and
250,000 is .00111 percent of 225 million
WHY PAYING "USE FUEL" TAXES IS GOOD FOR EV DRIVERS
Why did Toyota cancel the RAV4, Why did GM cancel and recall the EV-1, why is CARB backing off on requirements. No new CAFE requirements. Do you think it might be because of the money involved?
Lets look at the money flows:
Manufacturer sells car, gets paid, makes reasonable profit, is happy. (they'd never admit it though)
EV driver buys car, saves on ownership costs, is happy.
Government reduces costs of pollution, defense, etc, but also reduces tax
revenue by 50 cents a gallon not consumed, is not happy.
About 80 or so years ago, the people asked Government to provide the service and care of the roads and highways of this nation. The Government responded and said yes with one stipulation. Where is the money coming from to do this? We responded with acceptance of both Federal and State road taxes. In the recent past, sales taxes were also added to the package.
Back in the 70s GM offered a propane engine. It was available for 6 months and then suddenly it was unobtainium. What happened? The government realized it wasn't getting it's gas tax revenue. The government offers incentives to automakers to build factories to create jobs in their area for payroll tax. They have a bunch of bean counters who look at the projected tax revenue from each source and the impact each policy has on that revenue. They are required to do this as a part of their bond
selling activities.
So we will never have plentiful EVs from a major manufacturer, or even reasonable responses from our government entities on most matters regarding EVs. They want to know "where is their money?" How will they keep the roads maintained (and all the other things that 50 cents a gallon pays for).
We will never have plentiful EVs until we find a way to make our government a partner in this venture instead of just an investor. We know that we save them money, but we also reduce their revenue. Lost revenue hits them right away. Savings don't matter until way after the fact, that's just the nature of government finance.
So we need to find a way to pay tax on our cars that the Tax Collector's offices will notice and attribute particularly to EVs. Something that they can account for. Something they can point to and say "Wow, last year our state had 500 EVs and we received 200 dollars each for them in taxes, this year we had 1000 EVs and we received US$200K, how can we increase
that number next year?"
When that happens our collective governments will be much more responsive to our needs and requests.
Silly me, I thought reducing fuel usage and conserving was a GOOD thing....... :mad:
and
250,000 is .00111 percent of 225 million"
You're screwing up the decimal point.
250,000 / 235,000,000 = 0.00106 which is 0.106%.
It is.
But so is reducing your cholesteral count. And reduced cholesteral has as much to do with paying for roads as improved fuel economy.
250,000 is 1.06 ONE THOUSANDTHS of 235 million.
One Thousandths is shown as
.001
So showing it as .00106 is completely correct.....
Exactly - fuel economy should have NOTHING TO DO with paying for roads.
Thus there can be no "hybrid gas tax penalty fees."
Yes, maybe so, however, that's not what you said. IIRC, you said ".00106 percent", and you should have said either ".106%" OR ".00106".
Best Regards,
Shipo
Yep, showing it as .00106 IS completely correct. Which is equal to .106% (which is what I posted).
Except before, you were saying .00106 PERCENT, which would be equal to .0000106.
S'okay, you were only 2 decimal places off (the percent part). Your compatriot had posted a figure of .0001532%, which was only off by 3 decimal points.
I don't think it will be instituted but if it is bikes may be treated differently.
It may also open up a black market to people that want to roll back their odometers.
It won't, that market already exists.
Sometimes, I wish I can just live on my own private island!!!
That can be arraigned, but to be honest it is cheaper just to pay the taxes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Hybrids make up a very small percentage of the registered vehicles on the USA roads today.
There is no way that such a small group of cars is having billions of dollars of impact on gas taxes.
Exactly - fuel economy should have NOTHING TO DO with paying for roads.
Hey! We agree again!
So, IF it would be unfair for folks with low cholesteral to pay less in road taxes, wouldn't it also be unfair for folks driving high economy cars to pay less in road taxes (implemented currently as a gas tax)?
Because that is what we have (and HAVE had) for decades: folks driving economy cars have paid less in road taxes. And as YOU'VE just pointed out, fuel economy should have nothing to do with paying for roads.
Is implementing an additional tax JUST on hybrids the 'fairest' solution? Of course not; I never said it was.
250,000 is .00106 percent of 23.5 Billion
250,000 is .106 percent of 235 million
250,000 is .00111 percent of 22.5 billion
250,000 is .111 percent of 225 million
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D