Talk about inconsistencies. Providing a tax incentive for going green for the environment and conserving fuel and then taxing owners to make sure they pay their fair share! My guess is this will never happen based on the lunacy of the logic. :blink:

It would be just as goofy as paying farmers to grow tobacco while spending money to try and keep people from using it. I sure hope you are right but seriously I don't think lunacy or lack of logic ever prevented a tax before.

But it would have the wonderful effect of decreasing the hybrid market and thereby lessening the competitive pressure on GM.
Poor little GM needs all the help they can get in order to keep SUVs profitable.

Then why not also tax small-car owners, since they use much less gas than SUV owners?

:huh:

Why not tax owners of ALL cars that get better than the average gas mileage(whatever that might be), so they too pay their fair share? Why they want to single out hybrid cars is not clear, but if they want to be sure we never solve the problems of environmental pollution and drindling oil resources, then this tax is a good step in that direction.

Hybrid owners need to start protesting now and make it clear we will not accept this penalty for going green.

Yes, why single out hybrid cars? They're such a small percentage of the driving population, they wouldn't really solve the problem.

I agree, taxing something because it costs less is ludicrous, which unfortunately has nothing to do with it becoming reality.

I have heard of a somewhat similar scheme called distance-based insurance. Instead of everyone paying the same for car insurance (given the same coverage), rates are based on how much you drive. This seems fair, in that people who drive less assume less risk, and cause less wear and tear on the roads. Of course, people who drive lots are totally opposed to the idea...

Don't worry about it. We will all be driving SUVs in 5-10 years and then they will tax us for having to widen the roads, bridges and parking spaces. :lol:

Sensibility rarely amounts to much in a tax debate, and will likely amount to nothing in this one too. But here goes anyway: "Fair" share of a highway infrastructure tax would be proportional to how much wear and damage your vehicle inflicts on the roadway surfaces, not on how much (or little) fuel you burn. Weight per sq. inch of footprint, speed and hours per year spent tearing up the road should be the basis for imposing the highway tax; unfortunately, fuel usage has been the surrogate for these measures because fuel usage roughly correlates: heavy, fast and many road hours all incur high fuel usage, and fuel sales are much easier to tax than making everyone declare weights, speeds and hours on the road on an addendum to form 1040.

Except the 1040 method doesn't have to be onerous at all:

The gov't already knows what vehicles we have (if they're registered) and from that information can determine average operating weights. If all we supplied were the odometer differentials from Jan 1 to Dec 31, that'd be all that's needed to calculate hours on the road and weight. Speed could be averaged as equivalent to DOT measured average speeds in the geographical area of residence (LA urban, SFO urban, Redding semi-urban, Tahoe mountainous, etc.) So with very little input from taxpayers (odometer readings only), gov't could calculate with fair accuracy our actual contribution to highway wear and tear.

The rub comes in collecting such a fairly assessed tax. Paying the somewhat unfair fuel sales tax we pay today makes it invisible and "painless." Paying a fairly assessed tax as an add-on to form 1040 would set everyone's teeth on edge, even if fuel prices fell 75 cents a gallon or whatever the tax burden is these days.

But forcing hybrid owners to pay BOTH the existing fuel taxes AND some form of an add-on to form 1040 sets only a tiny fraction of the population's teeth on edge, and could make a congressman look like he's doing something to "relieve" his constituency from paying more than their fair share. As I said, sensibility will be the smallest factor in this, or any other tax debate.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

Here is the link the the U.S. Chamber of Commerce page with their proposal:

http://www.uschamber.com/ncf/publications/default.htm

The report is in two sections.

I wonder if Detroit took advantage of what they should have learned in the Freedom Car project and had the lead with hybrids instead of Japan, would these proposals be there????

I think that they should tax the drivers if the gas guzzlers. That would serve two purposes. It would encourage them to get a more fuel efficient vahicle and at the same time increase the amount of money available for highway repairs and building. If everyone drove a fuel efficient car, it would reduce the amount of road repairs needed. Fuel efficient cars are smaller and would not cause as much wear on the roads as the large cars.

After reading the proposal to tax alternative fuel vehicles I began to think...There is some merit to the report. Think what would happen if everyone switched to alternative/hybrid vehicles. It would be good for the environment, gas supplies would increase thus lowering the price we pay at the pump, consumers would either save (an altruistic view) or spend the extra dollars saved at the pump. This would result in a growing economy, and presumably more jobs. All good stuff if I'm on right track.

Now we all drive hybrids...the federal and state governments bemoan the fact that tax revenues have gone down (due to lower gas prices and declining consumption). There isn't enough tax money to support our roads and highways.

How can this be alleviated?

Throw out the gas tax system all together.

I would rather pay an upfront yearly fee (read tax) based on my vehicles estimated road destruction and environmental impact over its lifetime. Heavier, less environment friendly, gas hogs, would pay more, while lighter more environment would pay less. Absolutely fair for everyone.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Well, I think the gas tax should be subsidized by the oil companies. Let them do something useful with their grandiose profits.

This is just a RECOMMENDATION by a non-government organization.
It has, to date, ZERO legislators on record supporting or expressing interest in sponsoring legislation to implement this.

It will be forgotten by next week.

All I can say is you've got to be kidding!!!!

How can this be alleviated?

Throw out the gas tax system all together.

I would rather pay an upfront yearly fee (read tax) based on my vehicles estimated road destruction and environmental impact over its lifetime. Heavier, less environment friendly, gas hogs, would pay more, while lighter more environment would pay less. Absolutely fair for everyone.

Please let me know your thoughts.

[snapback]163065[/snapback]

[/quote]


I agree it would be more fair to tax based on road and environmental impact, but the people who would pay the highest tax would be commercial trucking vehicles. The government would not want to add to that cost as it would result in higher market cost for just about everthing sold in this country. That would translate to an economic down-turn. On the other hand, they reason, the gov is giving hybrid buyers a tax break via the energy bill and they think we would be glad to give some of it back. Yeah, right.

I agree it would be more fair to tax based on road and environmental impact, but the people who would pay the highest tax would be commercial trucking vehicles. The government would not want to add to that cost as it would result in higher market cost for just about everthing sold in this country. That would translate to an economic down-turn. On the other hand, they reason, the gov is giving hybrid buyers a tax break via the energy bill and they think we would be glad to give some of it back. Yeah, right.

[snapback]163657[/snapback]

Commercial truckers are already paying various impact fees. Those fees could be eliminated and one fee established. This fee would probably be more than the fees they are currently being charged but the fee cost would be recouped at the gas pump when they don't pay any gas tax. It should also be noted that a big rig will damage the roads faster than any car or SUV. They should pay more. I don't believe we would see any drastic changes on per iterm costs being carried through to consumers, and consumers would have the benefit of greater spendable income during the year.

BTW I never met a Georgia Peach I didn't like :blink:
[/quote]

How many hundred thousand hybrids are on the roads in the U.S? Not enough to have a revenue impact on the federal highway trust fund, let alone have a significant statistical impact on the car market.

This article and these thoughts that are being propigated by this article are popycock. Nothing more than out of touch D.C. bureaucrats whineing about the fact that they don't have enough of your money right now, regardlesss whether or not you are driving a hybrid.