They want to tax hybrids in WA

+1

Right! . . . . . . . but what this legislator IS truely showing is his(her) colors . . . . that (s)he is beholding either to the oil lobby or the trucking lobby, or the largest segment of the auto industry. Why? If the state DOES need money, all it has to do is jack up LARGE TRUCK fees ... or Commercial Truck fees. And why is THAT fair? Because the largest/heavy trucks & land barges are the REAL wear factor on roads ... not smaller/lighter cars ... much less the fledgling EV industry. No . . . THIS law maker is bending over for the wrong industry. Colaterally, if you jack up fees for BIG cars, BIG trucks, not only do you put the burden of fees where they belong, you encourage folks to stop buying land barges. But then .... THAT'S not mr. phony law maker's goal now, is it.


.

 

What an idiot. What's next?

- Tax people who walk to work?
- Tax bicycle riders?
- Tax bus riders?
- Tax cars with more than a single occupant?
- Big tax on telecommuters and home office users.

Ah yes, your government at work.

 

Considering the Federal mandate of 35mpg by 2016, $4.00 gasoline, and automakers moving more and more towards hybrids, residents of Washington are screwed.

 

I find it almost laughable that some of you are so outraged by this thought .... of course there will be new taxes on fuel efficient vehicles; of course there will be special levy's on EV ..... the greedy politicians need to find money anywhere they can to squander and waste, and the loss of gasoline tax money is serious business. And you thought they were all for "green;" for conservation; and lowering dependancy on foreign oil.

 

The irony that I see here though is that while the Federal and many state governments have offered tax rebates on plugin hybrids an EVs, this washington state politician is saying "If they give you a rebate...I'm going to take it from you."

 

Maybe it's time to fund transportation according to costs and benefits, not from general taxation. Hint: car drivers won't like it at all, but hybrids and electrics will come out much better.

 

Can you give me an example so I can better understand. Thanks.

 

"if you drive a car i'll tax the street, if you try to sit i'll tax the seat, if you get too cold i'll tax the heat, if you take a walk i'll tax your feet" everybody now, TAXMAN!

 

I agree that fees on trucks would make much more sense. Make it progressive, the heavier the vehicle the bigger the annual fee. Drivers of SUVs and pickups should pay for the damage they do to the highway system.

 

Yup, the proposal was real. Nope, I haven't heard about it making any progress through the legislature, which is constitutionally limited to a fairly short annual session. Some deadlines have already passed.

And someone at CNN can't read. It was electrics only, not hybrids. If it covered hybrids, the projected revenue would be far higher than listed. That number means just 5000 vehicle-years combined for this year and next, well below our hybrid population.

Oregon made some noise about a similar tax for hybrids a few years ago.

 

CNN's link says it, even though the target page does not.

 

i've lost a lot of respect for cnn over the past few years, brutal.

 

In your opinion how should EV owners pay for the roads they drive on? Would you prefer that every paved road belong to "someone" who would have the right to charge users to be on it?

 

Eventually sure, of course the revenue lost to gasoline taxes will need to be made up. Right now, road revenue also comes from licensing fees, traffic tickets, and the gas guzzler tax (and probably something else that I left out). Perhaps the licensing fee will increase in the FUTURE. But right now, the reason the Fed and many states are offering rebate incentives to buy EVs is because at this time, in 2011, we need to give people an incentive to move society forward towards independence from foreign oil imports. Remember the carpool stickers in CA? Many years later, they are being phased out and new HOV stickers are being issued for plugins and EVs.

In the future, I definitely agree the revenue needs to be made up. But don't cry about "Who killed the EV" and turn around and remove the tax rebates that are getting citizens to become first adopters of EVs.

 

This one smells like a right wing job. Weird--and dangerous.

 

Tempting thought .... but it is not so simple. Consider that business/industry/manufacturers do not absorb any higher cost ... they pass the cost on the purchaser in the form of higher prices. Transportation cost are high even now, but would significantly inflate every product we buy .... that will occur even now due to higher fuel cost.

Every great idea seems to have an equal and opposite reaction. Consider the 1.5 gal/flush toilet. Great idea; save water; but it requires three flushes to clear the bowl. OK, new power flush toilet will do the job with one flush, but with less water in the sewer systems, solids do not move along through the pipe, and obstructions are now common.

I agree there seems to be many people driving large PU trucks that seem to be unjustified. Here in the mountain west, however, so many (I have no idea the percentage) are used on the farm, hauling livestock, hay, sprinkler pipe .... start tampering with the farmer or ranchers operating cost, and food prices will skyrocket. Construction workers haul lumber, appliances, compressors and etc. Can't do that behind a Prius.

I suspect a large percentage of PU trucks are used to haul RV's. Are we prepared to kill-off that industry? Mid west manufacturers would take a terrible hit, lay-offs, lower tax revenues ....... well you get the idea.

If the answers were simple, we would have solved the problems long ago. Personally .... I think I favor taxing horsepower. I see adds on TV ... 500 HP. Why? Top speed 180mph. Why? If a person has sufficient resources to enjoy that level of performance .... then they should not mind paying for the "pride of ownership."

 

Mary

 

Felt, your comment above is very well said.
I've always thought that big heavy vehicles should be penalized (high gasoline prices help), but I've always thought that semi-trucks and commercial vehicles should somehow be exempt or receive a break from high fuel costs. I'm thinking that a system like you propose (tax based on weight and horsepower) could be implemented, yet allow vehicles that are registered as commercial and for business use (trucks only, excludes cars) to be exempt from the elevated tax. While city dwellers driving Ford Excursions for personal use would pay a surcharge tax, farmers and construction workers would not be required to pay the extra tax. People that live in rural areas could also qualify for exemption if they can show that they have dirt roads and/or rural terrain that they must navigate in their area of residence. Just a thought.

 

There are actually ten cities in the State of Washington that are trying to get a Street Maintenance Utility (HB1929) passed by the House. This is because the local cities don't have the money to keep up the streets they are responsible for. Here is where you can read about how they plan to use the SMU to fund local roads. In a nut shell they will have businesses that have the most traffic (calculated by the square footage of a building and some other figures) pay more with residential homes paying less. Its up for vote in the House on March 7th.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1929.pdf

 

If that is how you characterize a Washington State Democrat, I'd hate to think how you'd portray a Republican.

BTW, it appears this is still in play, according to the legislature's BillInfo summary: Imposing an additional vehicle license fee on electric vehicles.