Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids

rorr · December 2005

"Hybrids make up a very small percentage of the registered vehicles on the USA roads today."

Correct. The operative word being 'today'.

But as virtually every hybrid afficionado has claimed many times over in other forums (and this would include you), this percentage WILL become significant in the foreseeable future, PARTICULARLY when/if fuel prices start shooting up again.

So why not start talking about it now?

larsb · December 2005

We can talk about it as long as we want, but taxing high mileage cars MERELY BECAUSE they are high mileage cars should not be in the discussion.

rorr · December 2005

I guess it's all in how you frame the discussion.

You say the proposed taxation is MERELY BECAUSE they are high mileage cars (as though someone, somewhere intends to be vindictive or something).

We been trying to frame the discussion in terms of tax dollars collected vs. highway use. It is a fact that high mileage cars (whether they are hybrid or not) pay less road tax dollars vs. their highway use. In an effort to make things somewhat more equitable (tax dollars collected more reflective of highway use), why WOULDN'T it be rational to tax high mileage cars more?

IF we went to a pure road-use tax (somehow recorded actual miles traveled and taxed accordingly) I'm sure that the additional tax bite on hybrid owners under THAT scenario would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher than the proposed tax on hybrids which you are fighting tooth and nail.

snakeweasel · December 2005

it would have the total effect of reducing tax revenues for roads by almost $700 for each mile a hybrid drives.

larsb · December 2005

Talking about "what MPG a vehicle gets" is completely inappropriate, based on 50 years of not caring about that at all.

Like I have repeatedly said; if someone wants to aid the lost gas tax revenue pool and they want to tax ALL VEHICLES based on miles driven, then that's fair across the board.

larsb · December 2005

quote sw-"it would have the total effect of reducing tax revenues for roads by almost $700 for each mile a hybrid drives."-end quote

Say What?

Gas tax is about 18 cents a gallon.

Hybrid used 500 gallons a year, that's $90 a year.
Non-Hybrid uses 1000 gallons a year, that's $180 a year.

State is losing $90. No where close to $700 for each mile driven - that's kooky !!!

tpe · December 2005

Up until 1982 the federal tax on gasoline was 4 cents per gallon. It is now 18.4 cents per gallon. On top of that the amount of fuel consumed has gone up 40%. That represents almost a 650% increase in revenue. During that same period the number of miles driven has increased by roughly 90%. Factoring for the increased miles, the amount of money the federal government collects per mile driven has increased by 340% since 1982. I believe that's right inline with inflation without accounting for the fact that economies of scale indicate that it shouldn't cost twice as much to handle twice as many vehicles or miles driven. Maybe the problem is how our government is managing these funds.

Does anyone find it amusing that our federal government has extended tax credits for buying a hybrid and are now considering tax penalties for driving one?

rorr · December 2005

"Does anyone find it amusing that our federal government has extended tax credits for buying a hybrid and are now considering tax penalties for driving one?"

Personally, I find it hilarious.

But then, I'm easily amused....

Regarding your analysis of revenues collected over the years: it would be a false assumption that the cost of highway construction has only increased according to the rate of inflation.

The costs of highway construction has grown substantially faster than inflation due to numerous factors. Amoung them: cost of land/ROW condemnation is far ahead of where it was 20 years ago; it is far more expensive on a lane-mile basis to add lanes to existing roads (due to the need to account for existing traffic) than it is to build a brand new road; the permitting process (including all the new environmental hoops to be jumped through) drastically drive up costs; AND as our road system ages, the % of the funds diverted to road maintenance rather than new road construction is much higher.

tpe · December 2005

I don't doubt that new highway construction is far more expensive than maintenance. The state that I live in has seen very little new highway construction over the past 15 years yet I pay the same 18.4 cents per gallon in federal excise taxes as everyone else. So I must be paying for roads being built somewhere else, maybe Boston's Big Dig. So the people that complain about how low mpg vehicles are subsidizing the high mpg vehicles should realize that low growth areas are subsidizing high growth areas.

Politicians are afraid of raising the gas tax, saying it would be political suicide. Well, raising revenue is raising revenue, its just a matter of what group you feel more comfortable hitting up. With truck/SUV sales accounting for more than 50% of vehicles sold I guess it makes sense to appease that group.

BTW, the incorporation of GPS and additional odometers in this solution is one reason it has no shot at being adopted. Besides the privacy issues, who is going to pay to have all the existing cars fitted with these devices and keep them maintained?

rorr · December 2005

Re: GPS and additional odometers.

Personally, I don't think (if we went purely to a mileage based road tax) that it would be GPS based because of the privacy issue.

I do think however that an additional odometer device readable by the pump could be implemented. And there would be no need to retrofit existing cars; existing cars would simply pay a gas tax instead (perhaps bumped up by some amount) and new cars would NOT pay the tax based on gallons pumped but would pay the tax based on the odometer.

BTW - the mileage could be stored in RAM in the on-board computer. The pump would not only read the odometer reading and reset the mileage memory but it could also read info stored in ROM (vehicle weight) to adjust the road-use tax based on vehicle weight (if the taxing entity desired to break it down that far).

Would this system account for mileage traveled on toll vs federal/state/local? No, it wouldn't. Of course, the current system doesn't either. It would however be a mileage-based use system without the GPS privacy issues.

falconone · December 2005

About 35 or so posts back I created a monster. I completely took a fictional SMALL number out of the air to emphasize my point about how SMALL the hybrid market is.

After reading about all the high mileage cars with gas and diesel engines that MAY be coming to our shores I just got really excited. I want that BMW that gets 50MPG!!!

To all you hybrid owners: Don't worry... you will NEVER, EVER have to pay extra for the privilege of using the roads of the US. Ain't gonna happen.

To everyone else: Let's clean house (senate/congress) and get some people that know how to run a country. As for me, I don't mind paying an extra $500-$1000 a year for better roads. Heck...it may get some people off the roads which will be a GOOD thing.

stevedebi · December 2005

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

I believe they are considered trucks over 6000 lbs. They are not subject to CAFE and I don't think they incur a gas guzzler tax.

rorr · December 2005

A completely fictional number to prove a point? Don't you know that some of us in here like nothing better than to pounce all over numbers like that?

NO soup for you!

I think most of us are aware that there ain't a snowball's chance that hybrids would get singled out for an additional gas tax. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

Re: cleaning house in the congress - I have two words for you: TERM LIMITS!

snakeweasel · December 2005

If you read what I said the total effect, since there are supposively 250,000 hybrids the total effect of each hybrid driving one mile is 250,000 miles. Since 250,000 hybrids each driving 1 mile will, on average, use about 3,700 gallons less fuel than 250,000 non-hybrid alternatives the effect of all those hybrids driving 1 mile is a loss of $680.80 (3,700 times 18.4 cents) in taxes.

stevedebi · December 2005

"To all you hybrid owners: Don't worry... you will NEVER, EVER have to pay extra for the privilege of using the roads of the US. Ain't gonna happen."

I happen to disagree. The roads have to be maintained, and the money will have to come from somewhere. As others have pointed out, as high MPG cars (of whatever type) become more prevalent, the problem will come to the fore.

Various possibilities:

1. Tax higher mpg vehicles separately. (The subject of this Forum)

2. Implement a mileage driven / vehicle weight based tax.

3. Engine size tax (similar to Europe), gathered at vehicle registration annually. This rewards smaller, more fuel efficient engines as well.

4. {Enter your ideas here}

rorr · December 2005

"4. {Enter your ideas here}"

Simple bump to the current gas tax. Or converting it from a set cents/gallon to a %/gallon (sales tax).

snakeweasel · December 2005

A few flaws in that. First is that you cannot use the 18.4 cents a gallon since 2.86 cents per gallon goes into a mass transit fund and .1 cent a gallon goes into "other funds". That takes your 650% increase to 550%. Secondly that 4 cents a gallon was from 1959 so if that fuel consumption increase is from 1983 then you have to use 9 cents a gallon (the tax in 1983) now your increase is 240%. Add to that more miles driven, more roads to maintain and inflation and you have yourself a major short fall.

snakeweasel · December 2005

I will second rorr on in just adjusting the current tax plan. But I will add adding a major road use tax on hay (Amish use the roads too you know).

larsb · December 2005

That's a nicely thought out equation, but not reality.

Reality is this:

a 50 mpg vehicle pays $90 PER YEAR in gas tax for 500 gallons

a 25 mpg vehicle pays $180 PER YEAR in gas tax for 1000 gallons to drive the same distance

That's only $90 per year per hybrid of "lost" revenue, which in total is $22.5 million per year for the entire USA.

If your $680 per mile figures are used, that would be two and a half TRILLION dollars in lost revenue per year !!! (ROFLMTO) :shades:

newt5 · December 2005

> 3. Engine size tax (similar to Europe), gathered at vehicle
> registration annually. This rewards smaller, more fuel
> efficient engines as well.

Having lived in Ireland, I can tell you the result of this. They calculate the tax based on # of liters. This results in 1.98 liter engines (to stay below 2.0) with turbos. This kind of defeats the purpose since you could crank up your turbo and get a really fast poor gas mileage car. Moreover, this doesn't take into account vehicle weight. I suppose you could base it on HP/vehicle weight ratio, but I'm sure car manufacturers would find some way around this to minimize the tax a person would pay without.

As much as we all hate them, toll roads work and you can easily charge for greater usage based on # of axles.

I know, I only pose problems, not solutions.

Newt

snakeweasel · December 2005

OK your figures are a little off as it presumes 25,000 miles a year which is much higher than normal. But lets look at that with your figures. A loss of 22.5 million divided by the 25k miles you say the average driver drives is $900 per average mile.

Proof

$900 X 25,000 (average amount driven) = 22.5 million.

Gee your figures agree with mine (adjusted for minor differences in MPG).

Thank you for proving my point.

So I stand by my statement that every average mile driven by hybrids as a whole cost almost $700 in taxes.

tpe · December 2005

The 4 cents per gallon may have originated in 1959 but that was also when the plan to build the interstate system originated, right? That was major new construction, which as another poster pointed out is more expensive than maintenance.

There is nothing unfair about the current system because the buyer of a low mpg vehicle knows prior to purchase what he is getting into. If he doesn't like it then he has the option that everyone else has to purchase a more efficient vehicle. If all drivers did this would that reduce revenue? Absolutely, and we'd have to raise the fuel tax to account for this. The government would have its funding with less gas being burned meaning less CO2. Isn't that the goal? You posted earlier that miles driven is inelastic to price. I disagree but let's say you're right. Then the only way to burn less gas is to drive more efficient vehicles.

I personally don't like the idea of using a percentage of the gas price due to the fact that gas prices have become far too volatile. It would be just too difficult to accurately project revenue. I think we just have to bump up the 18.4 cents a gallon and not be afraid to do so whenever needed.

I think this whole debate could go away if we changed the public mindset that this revenue's sole purpose is road construction/maintenance. Other countries just call it a Carbon tax. It certainly isn't unprecedented for the government to use the tax code or fines to discourage behavior that is considered detrimental to our society. Our officials publicly state that reducing fuel consumption is in the country's best interest. That being the case fuel taxes in their present form are not inconsistent.

larsb · December 2005

quote-"So I stand by my statement that every average mile driven by hybrids as a whole cost almost $700 in taxes."-end quote.

Your math is wrong - no way it's $700 a mile !!

Let's say 15,000 miles per year, per hybrid.

15,000 miles at 50 miles per gallon means 300 gallons.

300 gallons times 18.4 cents per gallon is $55.20 paid in gas taxes per year.

Any quibbles to this point? Is that math wrong?

OK, so lets go to a 25 MPG vehicle.

15,000 miles per year at 25 mpg means 600 gallons.

600 gallons times 18.4 cents per gallon is $110.40 paid in gas taxes per year by the 25 mpg car.

That's a loss of $55.20 PER HYBRID for 15,000 miles driven, which averages to 0.00368 cents per mile !!!!!

$55.20 times 250,000 hybrids is $13,800,000 lost for the WHOLE HYBRID POPULATION for the WHOLE YEAR for the WHOLE USA !!!

$700 per mile driven would be

700 times 15,000 miles per car per year THEN THAT times 250,000 hybrids, which would be 2.625 TRILLION dollars a year !!!

Good Gosh man come to your senses !!! :mad:

PS
Someone else please chime in and tell the forum that my math is correct !!!

tpe · December 2005

Toll roads. How about this. Eliminate gas taxes completely and make every stretch of road a toll road. Compute the toll for each stretch of road by dividing the amortized cost of construction and maintenance for that stretch of road divided by the number of cars that travel it. I think that people would be surprised by what the resulting tolls would be. I suspect that a lot of our roads that currently have tolls on them would actually be some of the cheapest to drive. And the most expensive tolls would be on the roads located in the suburbs or rural areas.

larsb · December 2005

Aren't toll roads fairly costly to install and maintain?

And what about people who have commutes like me, who rarely leave City streets?

snakeweasel · December 2005

Maybe you should come to your senses.

I will type this slowly so you can follow along.

For every mile the average hybrid drives close to $700 will be lost in tax revenue. Since there are 250,000 hybrids out there that means for every mile the average hybrid drives means that 250,000 actual miles are driven (do you understand that?). In that 250,000 miles hybrids will use 3700 gallons less and the tax rate is .184 per gallon that results to just under $700.

700 times 15,000 miles per car per year THEN THAT times 250,000 hybrids, which would be 2.625 TRILLION dollars a year !!!

We are not talking $700 per mile per vehicle, if you would actually read my post you would know that. We are talking about the accumulated effect so it would be:

$700 times 15,000 (the average miles driven) = 10,500,000.

FORGET ABOUT THE 250,000 since it is already figured in the $700.

Again I stand by my statement, the accumulated effect of hybrids driving one mile is a tax loss of just under $700.

gagrice · December 2005

Someone else please chime in and tell the forum that my math is correct !!!

I am following your math. The $700 mile lost me also. I might add the road tax in CA is about 50 cents a gallon. So you can see it can become a large loss of revenue in the future.

gagrice · December 2005

FORGET ABOUT THE 250,000 since it is already figured in the $700.

Now I follow your line of thinking. You have to be an HP calculator person.

tpe · December 2005

I imagine some toll roads are much more expensive to build and maintain, especially when bridges or tunnels are involved. But I've driven on many toll roads that seem no different than the non-toll road that I just got off and they have the same level of traffic if not more. Therefore they must be generating as much gas tax revenue as the non-toll road and I find myself wondering how it was decided that this stretch of road requires an additional charge. If a toll must be imposed I think you must first take into consideration how much is already being paid by the drivers on that road. For instance if the road is 21 miles long then the average car burns a gallon of gas on that road meaning he has paid 18.4 cents in federal taxes and probably another 24 cents in state and local taxes. When determining the toll this 42 cents needs to be subtracted and once the cost of construction has been completely amortized then the toll should just reflect the cost of maintenance. I seriously doubt it works this way and people that drive on toll roads are subsidizing the other roads and kicking in to the general fund.

tpe · December 2005

California's gas taxes are among the 10 highest in the country and they don't go entirely to road maintenance and construction. California is a state that really sees it as a Carbon tax and my understanding is they have no intention of adopting a fee based on miles driven. Good for them.

falconone · December 2005

Why can't we all agree that everyone who uses the roads pay EQUAL amounts for the privilege. That seems to be the fairest solution. Something easier to implement would be a $0.20 (arbitrary amount) tax per gallon to cover the shortfall they anticipate. High mileage cars should NOT be penalized simply because they consume less. It makes NO sense at all and it will NEVER, EVER happen. As BUSH Sr once said... READ MY LIPS..NO NEW TAXES FOR HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES.

gagrice · December 2005

Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

They have been looking at it for a while. If the Oregon project looks like a money maker. CA and many other states will jump on the bandwagon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

snakeweasel · December 2005

Therefore they must be generating as much gas tax revenue as the non-toll road and I find myself wondering how it was decided that this stretch of road requires an additional charge.

It is my understanding that tollways are self supporting, no tax money is supposed to go to them and the funds are only supposed to stay on the tollway (or in politicians pockets).

jhinsc · December 2005

Snakeweasal, to be fair, some of your posts were confusing in the wording. I had to re-read one several times to make sure what you were stating was true. What would have been clearer is to state that with 250,000 hybrids costing $700 the US/State treasury dept's for each they drive, the average impact of each hybrid for each mile they drive is really .0028 cents.

tpe · December 2005

I was basing my statement on this excerpt from the SF Chronicle.

"In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration says the idea of a gas-tax change isn't on his agenda.

"The bottom line is this is something that's not on the front burner or back burner,'' said H.D. Palmer, state Department of Finance spokesman. California has studied the idea in the past, and the Legislature would have to approve any change to the current system."

It surprises me that Oregon is seriously considering this approach. I had always considered the entire West Coast to be more environmentally friendly in their thinking. I can pretty much guarantee that most drivers of hybrids or high mpg vehicles are not opposed to paying more in fuel taxes. What they are opposed to is paying more so that the driver of a Hummer can pay less. If the people in low mpg vehicles feel like they are getting screwed then the solution for them seems pretty obvious. It's like the guy whose banging his head against a wall and complaining that it hurts. If the perceived unfairness of the current system results in more people choosing "greener" vehicles, guess what? That does not represent a flaw.

larsb · December 2005

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051202/OPINION02/512020310/-1/OPINION

"It's a ridiculous notion, not just because of its underlying logic that cars with better gas mileage pay less in gas tax, and therefore should be taxed in some other fashion, but because it would penalize Americans who make an environmentally prudent purchase."

tpe · December 2005

I read that article and agree with its message. It said that the Bush administration shot down a 4-5 cent increase in the gas tax. I'm speculating here but I suspect that there was concern about being accused of raising taxes and that would be correct. But if a fee per use system resulted in generating more revenue why wouldn't that also represent an increase in taxes?

I haven't read all the posts but has anyone provided numbers about what this would cost the driver of a 50 mpg vehicle over what it costs now. Here is my estimate. The average passenger vehicle on the road travels just over 22 miles for every gallon of gas burned. Therefore the government collects, 18.4 cents for every 22 miles driven. Right now a Prius owner is paying 18.4 cents for every 50 miles driven but some people believe that the Prius driver should pay the same as everyone else for highway funding. This would result in a 23 cent per gallon surcharge being applied at the pump. And that is only to maintain the same revenue level that we have today, which apparently isn't enough. BTW, these numbers don't factor in for SUVs and light trucks, which I assume would be taxed differently.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_04_11.h- - - tml

rorr · December 2005

"Why can't we all agree that everyone who uses the roads pay EQUAL amounts for the privilege."

Well I'm certainly in favor of this....

"High mileage cars should NOT be penalized simply because they consume less."

...but apparently you aren't.

tpe just posted a nice succinct little analysis:

The average vehicle mileage is 22 mpg. The Federal gas tax rate is 18.4 cents/gallon. Therefore, the average owner pays 18.4 cents in Federal taxes to drive 22 miles (a road use tax of about 0.84 cents/mile).

A high mileage car may get 50 mpg. That driver also pays 18.4 cents/gallon in federal taxes (I assume this qualifies as 'equal' to you). But he pays only 18.4 cents to drive 50 miles (a road use tax of about 0.37 cents/mile).

Though he is paying an 'equal' GAS tax, he is paying LESS THAN HALF the road-use tax of the average owner.

So, which is it? We should all pay EQUAL amounts for the privilege (everyone who uses the road) OR we should NOT penalize high mileage cars simply because they consume less?

You can't argue for both.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you still want everyone to pay the exact same gas tax. If that is the case, please stop arguing that we should all pay equal amounts for the privilege of using the roads. Just admit that it is okay for high mileage cars to get a break because their owners are more socially responsible and the gas tax is a good way to punish owners of vehicles with poor economy.

gagrice · December 2005

BTW, these numbers don't factor in for SUVs and light trucks, which I assume would be taxed differently.

I am not sure that has been addressed. I did not see anything in the Oregon pilot project that differentiated between all the light vehicles. After further research I believe the Oregon system is only addressing State mileage tax. I think you would still have to pay the 18.4 cents per gallon. That would be in addition to the 1.25 cents per mile. So a Prius that gets 50 MPG you would be taxed at the pump for 80.9 cents for 50 miles driven. A Camry getting 25 MPG would pay 99.3 cents for 50 miles. A 12.5 MPG Tundra would pay $1.36 for 50 miles driven All three have about the same impact on the highway. Yet the Hybrid would get the best rate. If the Feds decide to get into the mileage tax game it would skew those figures more toward even across the board.

rorr · December 2005

"So a Prius that gets 50 MPG you would be taxed at the pump for 80.9 cents for 50 miles driven. A Camry getting 25 MPG would pay 99.3 cents for 50 miles. A 12.5 MPG Tundra would pay $1.36 for 50 miles driven"

I like it; sounds good to me.

I also like the following quote from the college student in the CBSNews piece (who commutes about 2k miles a month and traded in his Beemer for a Prius):

"It's not fair for people like me who have to commute, and we don't have any choice but take the freeways," says Just. "We shouldn't have to be taxed."

Translation: I can't help it, somebody else needs to pay for this road I use a lot.

tpe · December 2005

I agree that snakeweasel described the hybrid's impact in a way that was a little difficult to get your arms around.

Let me try.

Let's start out with the premise that the person buying a Prius represents someone that otherwise would have been in the market for a Corolla. Now let's say that the Prius averages 50 mpg as opposed to the Corolla's 35 mpg. BTW, I think I'm being generous to the Prius. The loss in revenue is the difference between .53 cents per mile and .37 cents a mile. So for every mile this Prius is driven the government is losing .16 cents. How many miles would it take for this loss to get to the $700 mark that has been mentioned? Simple math, 70000/.16 = 437,500 miles. Oh my God, for every 18 times this Prius owner drives around the earth the government is out $700. Our government is willing to subsidize the purchase of a million dollar home to the tune of $20k per year yet they are worried about the .16 cent they are losing every mile a hybrid is driven. Sometimes you really have to wonder who is running the asylum?

rorr · December 2005

Well, I think what is happening is the 'good' folks with the government look at it this way:

Hmmm, the average vehicle mileage is 22 mpg. The average hybrid probably gets around twice that.

(small light bulb flashes on)

Good lord - those hybrid folks are paying HALF their share of the taxes on a per mile basis!!!!

See, when you express it that way (without paying any attention whatsoever to just how many hybrids there actually are), it kinda makes sense that an effort would be made to collect more taxes from hybrid owners.

Is the hybrid owner population a small percentage of the road traffic? Sure. Would taxing hybrid owners more 'solve' the highway funding problem? Hell no.

BUT, I don't think it can be argued that the current system is 'fair' SIMPLY because everyone pays the same tax $/gallon.

Is it worth it, NOW, to drastically overhaul the system? Probably not, but I think that at some point in time, we need to realize that gas revenues ARE down substantially (compared to the number of vehicles on the road) and that the issue must be faced.

tpe · December 2005

Let's say the feds adopted a similar system. Do you think this would effect the car buying decision in a way that fuel efficient vehicles would become less attractive? If the answer is yes how can you reconcile that with the current gas guzzler tax and incentives being offered for hybrids?

Why has this issue suddenly become ripe? The system of taxing per gallon has been in effect from the very beginning. At 18.4 cents a gallon it represents a very low percent of the total cost when viewed from a historical perspective. Why are the legislators choosing a time when energy concerns are high to change to a policy that is less conservation minded? The whole thing makes zero sense to me.

tpe · December 2005

I really don't think the disparity between high and low mpg vehicles is any greater today than it was in the 70s. Back then the Toyotas, Datsuns, and Hondas were getting 30 mpg and the typical American 4 barrel V8 was lucky to get 12. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of people you see driving their $35k+ SUV behemoths went way over their heads (financially) in order to put themselves in the seat of this uniquely American status symbol. We need to do something to keep them out of bankruptcy court.

"BUT, I don't think it can be argued that the current system is 'fair' SIMPLY because everyone pays the same tax $/gallon. "

I would only agree with this if some people were forced to drive low mpg vehicles and others were allowed to have more efficient vehicles.

falconone · December 2005

I do NOT have a high mileage car. Please state your argument on why someone who owns a high mileage car should pay MORE for using the same road than someone who has a 40MPG car. If we all paid the same fee per mile, that is parity. Plain and simple.

tpe · December 2005

The fee per mile that a driver pays is directly proportional to the fuel efficiency of his vehicle. Therefore, if you have two drivers that travel the same number of miles the driver getting the better mileage will pay less for road maintenance. Unfair??

Take two people making the same income that live in identical homes. The only difference is that one of them owns his home and the other rents. Now assume that the rent is equal to the other's mortgage+tax payment. The mortgage payer is going to pay less in taxes, is this fair? I don't know if it's fair but it is intentional because the government has decided that it is in society's best interest to encourage home ownership. So now the question becomes, is it in our society's best interest to encourage fuel efficiency?

gagrice · December 2005

Why has this issue suddenly become ripe?

I don't think it is just now coming to the forefront. It was discussed after the PZEV mandate in CA. CARB made a law that a percentage of all vehicles were to be electric. Then the other side of the aisle started moaning about the total loss of road tax when all the cars were to be plugged into the grid, leaving the gas stations sitting idle. Of course they shot the EVs down and now the hybrids come along and pose a similar dilemma. Who is going to pay for the roads to be maintained?

Then you add in the fact that both the states and the Federal government want a slice of the road taxes. If the Oregon mileage tax system works for them. As intrusive as it is I look for other states to be interested. It probably won't get through Congress until the (we love all taxes) party takes over again. Then Look out. Mileage tax will be the rage.

I think 3 cents per mile for every driver would be a good start. Let's get our roads and bridges back up to a decent standard.

gagrice · December 2005

The mortgage payer is going to pay less in taxes

Kind of off the subject. However, Congress has tried to take that last decent tax break of the middle class also.

I really don't see your objection to a straight mileage tax. The high mileage diesel and hybrids still get better mileage and buy less fuel. Our road tax is no where near the same as Canada & the EU where most of what you pay at the pump is dumped into the government coffers. I will gladly pay a mileage tax if I see some improvement in our infrastructure.

snakeweasel · December 2005

I do NOT have a high mileage car. Please state your argument on why someone who owns a high mileage car should pay MORE for using the same road than someone who has a 40MPG car.

No one is saying that they should pay more but attempt to pay the same. In other words why should they pay LESS for using the same road.

tpe · December 2005

"Kind of off the subject. However, Congress has tried to take that last decent tax break of the middle class also. "

Not completely off topic. Wherever there is a tax break for some group there must be a tax penalty for another. Right now high mpg vehicles enjoy a tax break at the expense of low mpg vehicles. Is this consistent with an objective that is in the country's best interest? I think so. As far as everyone having to pay their equal share for the use of a government provided service. Why? That doesn't apply to any other service that the government provides. The big mistake that the government made was earmarking gas taxes for a specific purpose. Had it just been viewed as any other sales tax nobody ever would have objected. BTW, there was a few year period in the early 90s where the association between fuel taxes and road maintenance was broken. These taxes were seen as any other source of revenue and went directly to the general fund and road grants were distributed by Congress where they saw the need.

Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles