"Hybrid Tax" (or fee) in your state? Legal?

The flat tax is levied statewide. If nova counties "want" to build more/fancy roads and need more revenue then they can levy additional taxes on a county governmental basis. That way nova citizens can have their fancy roads, and when they feel "overtaxed" the buck stops with their county governments.

 

Why not? seeing how you akready did it without my permission,
Let's see if Mass Paranoia will agree to Lt. Gov. on your ticket.

 

Agree to who?

 

I'm sorry.
I musta missunderstood, and besides.....if I were to run I would do so without a Light Governor, and would work tirelessly to abolish that (and about 1000 other) patronage jobs.
It would be easy.
Simply sign an executive order assigning that office the duty of highway garbage pickup.
In person.
With an orange vest.

Done.

 

Thanks guys...I am afraid I am mismanaging this election, but it was good experience.

 

A hybrid tax is the most illogical thing I have ever heard of. Are we trying to decrease fuel use/imported oil or what? I guess Americans like to pay high taxes to support oil wars. so what's another $50 per year. We should be charging an extra tax on low mileage vehicles in order to support the wars and repairs to the air and water.

Just a side comment...I am from NY, but live close to NJ border. Gas can be about 4o cents cheaper per gallon in NJ. I used to fill up in NJ whenever I had the chance, but I no longer do. Call me silly, but if I am going to pay any gasoline tax, I will pay it in my own state so the money at least goes to improvements in roads in my state.

 

Not sure why some states need more money from people who want to be Green, maybe charge the guy driving the Hummer or F150, they can afford it since most of the leave them running while their in the store getting beer and smokes............

 

They did it because the country doesn't produce cars, so any car sale is mainly a purchase from a foreign entity. Car makes like Fiat even specialize in not paying tax in the country, so the state wants to discourage car purchases as much as possible. Since none of the large car makers are invested in hybrids (Toyota isn't very big in Europe), they see no reason to encourage it. Besides, any changes to the tax system is toying with the largest cash cow in existence.

 

The solutions our government here in the darkest recesses of Europe are considering to levy this problem are chilling to say the least. They consider adding GPS-transmitters to all cars, spying on you to tell the government where you have driven.
Driving inside of city borders? Extra tax for you.
Driving more than what we expect? Let us contact your insurance company so they can warn you about your warranty.

The next step would be obvious:
Drive too fast? You can get your speeding ticket automatically! Oh, joy.

 

There wasn't any adaptation needed.

In the USA Republicans in particular treat taxation as a disease, while in other countries taxation is just a test result. (You might like it lower, but you really care about overall health.)

Back to topic ...

I can't see how a hybrid fee itself would be illegal. Fuel taxes are already inequitable so I don't think you could challenge on the basis of inequity. Can't be argued as targeting a minority unfairly. The only challenge could be on the basis of opposing national policy so you could only argue against the level of the tax instead of the basis.

 

Read your electric bill!

You may find out you are charged at a HIGHER tax rate than for gas. The electric vehicle tax problem is already solved. The only issue would be government deciding to mislead folks into thinking EV fuel is not taxed and therefore they must be brought to heel with even higher taxes elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the myth still lives that "gas taxes" are for road and transportation maintenance purposes. They are actually for whatever the government wants to spend them upon.

The cycle continues. Misspend tax money, let basic services suffer, claim the problem is not enough taxes. Repeat.

 

I agree, that taxation is arbitrary.

In this case, however, VA is taxing hybrids in part to recover lost Federal tax money. Federal road pork$$ is dished out to states on the basis federal gaso tax receipts. Therefore under the current system, the fed gives more $pork to states with gas guzzlers (simply reimbursing states for federal gaso taxes paid at the pump).

If the Feds would stop rewarding states with more gas guzzlers, then we might not have the problem in VA. In other words, Congress should give out *more* road dollars for high MPG cars, not less.

Yes a lot of Dems/politicians want to say, taxes are wholesome goodness that everyone should happily pay without complaint if you want to live in a quality society. Somehow however fairness comes into play.

 

It worked for Tesla when they loaned a car to the New York Times . . . and gave the rest of the story the reporter 'forgot to mention.'

Bob Wilson

 

That is not how taxes or the government works at all. Earmarking is just a voter manipulation technique. You will not find any legislation saying gas taxes must be used for roads and electricity taxes cannot be used for roads. The only realistic way is to understand government spending is to consider all taxes being revenue and all expenditures coming from the revenue and loans.

How much money is spent on road infrastructure is determined ENTIRELY by the priorities of the government, not by any requirement that certain revenue sources must go to certain places. For example, the salaries and pensions of government workers get the first priority, regardless of the revenue source. (And sport facilities seem to get second priority in many cities).

All claims that a "special tax" is needed or needs to be raised is only really focused on increasing revenue. It is sad to realize so many folks think the politicians are actually being honest. While their intent may be honest, the accounting is not what is claimed.

 

Democracy only works to the extent that the public/voters makes it work. Good Referendums, legislation, or competent elected officials all originate from the same source, educated voters. I really don't care about the political technique so much as getting voters digging behind the political statements and media manipulation to understand what is actually happening.

 

Everybody opposes taxes on themselves, and we are very adept at justifying our opposition with arguments about "logic" and "constitutionality." With regard to the OP's claim that the hybrid tax is unconstitutional because hybrid owners are a "class," I think that's a weak argument because we choose what car we will buy, within our budget. And since hybrids are generally more expensive to buy than similar-sized conventional cars, we can probably afford to pay the $65 per year.

Since the idea of the gas tax is to finance road building and maintenance, a rational and fair system would be to tax cars based on the space they occupy and the deterioration they case to the roads. So a formula that takes into account size, weight, and miles driven. The gas tax is the closest we can come without intrusive methods such as a black box in every car. (Which, BTW, would be a great idea both for taxation and for enforcing speed limits: there is no expectation of privacy on the public roads.)

I have always opposed special benefits for hybrids and EVs, even as I oppose subsidies for gasoline. They were giving a tax deduction for buying Priuses, to encourage hybrids, at a time when there was a half-year waiting list to get one. This is not sound financial policy. And I got a federal tax credit and a state sales-tax exemption for buying an electric car that while efficient and ground-breaking and zero-polluting, is still a rich man's toy, and that I would have bought without the subsidy.

Americans' reluctance to accept responsibility and tax ourselves to pay for the services we demand (in this case, roads) is digging us ever deeper into the debt hole that has made us unable to stand up to our creditors, like China, over trade issues like chicken.