Hybrids could pay more gas tax

No, no: gas tax *and* mileage tax (easily but not universally implementable as toll roads).

 

The fatal flaw in that logic is the statistic that hybrids "are forecast to account for 15 percent by 2020".

Anyone who believes that should be taxed.

By 2020, the first model year of Prius will be 23 years old. The technology will be so far beyond well proven that it would have become standards years earlier. Just look at the mobile device market for proof that battery technology would have drastically improved by then. So the belief that 85 percent will still be buying non-hybrids in 2020 is absolutely absurd. And that's not even taking into account what a gallon of gas will cost then.

 

This is the STUPIDEST idea that anyone has come up with since 10cent beer night at a Cubs game!!!!!

It would be easier to create fusion powered cars than get every person who owns a car to install milage monitoring equipment. :Wth: :Wth:

And they want to do this to make money? Who collects the tax now? Gas station owners, thats who. Who would collect it if this program were implemented? the government. They would have to create an entirely new division of government for collection and enforcement for this tax. ukeleft:

Any jerk-off state representative that proposes this plan, or even suggests that it be examined, should be hit with a stick. (while I usually don't like to stifle intellectual pursuits, that presumes there's an intellect behind the pursuit)

This is nothing more than an attempt to get more of your money. Be aware, they can institute the per mileage tax ON TOP OF a per gallon tax if they want to be fair, and who pays we do thats who. :cussing: :cussing: :cussing: :cussing:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"82905)</div>

:lolup:

Boy, that must have been an interesting socialogical experiment...

 

This doesn't sound like a brilliant idea by any stretch!
The proponents keep referring to "wear and tear" of roads by high mileage drivers. So, does my brother who rides his motorcycle 25,000 miles annually "wear and tear" up the roads more than the fat guy down the street who drives his Hummer 8,000 miles annually? Heavier vehicles "wear and tear" up the roads more than lighter vehicles. Heavier vehicles also tend to get poorer fuel economy than lighter vehicles, thus they pay more for gas. If legislators feel there is a deficit of incoming funds, why not just raise gas taxes higher across the board? Therefore, the more efficient and lighter vehicles pay a little more, and the heavier less efficient vehicles make up the difference. Doesn't that make more sense then raising funds to install "smart odometers" in cars and special computers at the gas pumps? Wouldn't that cost more than the amount of money legislators feel they are losing by hybrid vehicles "taking advantage" of the open road?
Boo to the mileage tax!

 

:iagree DUH! :silly:

and to answer your question, because it is easier to give you the shaft with two taxes!!!!!

when one tax gets to high people notice, and beeeeeatch!

With two smaller taxes you can steal more hard earned money from the people than one, just look at your phone bill. Yeah, you only pay $39 a month but your bill ends up being $55, Why, because little taxes that no one can get rid of because each one taken separately seems reasonable add up to a huge bill, and who do people blame? the phone company! It's the TAXES .

:ahole: . Remember NO corporation in America or the world pays a single cent in taxes! YOU, the CONSUMER pay every tax, one way or another!

On top of that the Liberals who espouse these stupid taxes are actually hurting the people they say the triumph, the poor hardworking average joe. He is the least able to pay these taxes yet EVERY tax on EVERY corporation is paid by him. and all the while they claim that the taxes are a way to get the big corporations to pay their "Fair share" to help out average Joe.

Remember YOU pay every tax, NO corporations pay ANY taxes!!!!!!!!!! :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

 

Be under no delusions, these sorts of proposed taxes all come out of Blue state strongholds on the west coast where the high priests of socialism create one scheme after another to serve up more tribute to their one god, which is government. Of course the tribute is the taxed sweat of workers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"82936)</div>

I agree that this proposal is stupid. I'm left wondering, however, where you got the idea that this is a "liberal" proposal.

As you point out, gas taxes (and mileage taxes) are regressive, costing working-class people a far higher percentage of their incomes than paid by those in the middle- and upper-classes. Such regressive taxation schemes (a.k.a., "user fees") have almost always been favored by self-described "conservatives" (those who want to "conserve" their economic advantage by buying friendly legislation).

 

Well, setting aside some of the comments here that seem to object to the collection of taxes to pay for maintenance of roads and highways at all, let's assume this is necessary and look at the alternatives. The scheme being considered to tax "per mile" seems fair in theory, but is subject to some objections. The privacy objections are valid but is seems to me that the main objection is the fact that you need to put some Rube Goldberg system in place to implement it. Any such system will be expensive, potentially unreliable (read "unfair") and subject to abuse. The current gas tax is simple to implement and impossbile to dodge.

It seem to me that it is rather early to be worrying about the impact of low-mileage vehicles on gas tax revenues, but if it does become an issue, the obvious solution is to raise the gas tax by a few cents. As for the "free ride" the low mileage vehicles would get, I guess my first reaction is: why is this suddenly an issue now? We _already_ have a variety of vehicles on the road with widely varying mileage and this has been true for years. Exclude the recent hybrid vehicles and just compare the vehicles with the highest and lowest mileage. It's a pretty big ratio, so the "unfairness" has been ongoing for some time. As I said, why raise the issue now?

If it were up to me, I would just raise the gas tax in the amount needed to generate the revenue required.

 

This is my 1st post on this forum...I am taking delivery of a used 2005 Prius (Option package 5, Leather seats, less than 6,000 miles) in 5 days.

In my opinion, the proposal to start moving to a "tax per mile" instead of a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is an abuse of power by a slight, yet arrogant, conservative majority against what they view to be "tree hugging liberals."

Intellectually, I am often puzzled by the term 'conservative' in that those that identify themselves to be 'conservative' feel some strange need to harass or punish those that try to 'conserve' resources.

I am amazed that people can purchase a $100K Hummer2 under the ownership of a "business" and write the entire cost off of their taxes, yet when others try to lead by example by being thrifty, embracing and promoting new technology, and trying to lessen our nation's dependence on foreign oil we are hounded once our ideas and actions start to become mainstream.

As pointed out earlier, there have always been cars on the road that get much better gas mileage than others - in the 1980s the Honda CRX was rated at near 50 mpg.

Owners of Hybrid cars pay more for their vehicles and pay higher sales taxes and registration fees as a result. We don't ask for any special treatment, we do it because we love the vehicles, the technology behind them, and in some cases for reasons of intellect or conscience.

It is a shame that because our numbers are growing, some people involved in government are threatened by our existence and fear losing the the ability to spend the tax revenue that they are addicted to.

Herb

 

We get what we vote for. To bad there isn't a viable 3rd party in the US.

 

Road pricing makes sense in certain circumstances. If you have a severe congestion problem, then pricing that area can help ease it in a way a general fuel tax can't. You can also adjust prices for different times of day, etc. The London Congestion Charge has been quite a success, and the money raised has helped greatly improve the bus services.

But it sounds like the proponents here have an agenda to help inefficient vehicles and punish efficient ones. A road pricing scheme needn't necessarily do that.

For example here the Prius, together with other alternative fuel cars, is totally exempt from the London Congestion Charge.

And in the current election campaign, the Liberal Democrats' manifesto is in favour of eventually abolishing fuel tax and annual car tax and replacing them with road charging. But importantly the charge would be based on "location, congestion and pollution (including the level of pollution of the particular vehicle)." And of course "pollution" includes CO2, contrary to some US nutjobs' view.

Any road charging scheme that treats clean cars the same as dirty/inefficient ones would be so obviously flawed a 5-year old could see it.

The LibDems are also in favour of extending emissions trading to aviation (yay!).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanP\";p=\"82979)</div>

I agree that this proposal is stupid. I'm left wondering, however, where you got the idea that this is a "liberal" proposal.

As you point out, gas taxes (and mileage taxes) are regressive, costing working-class people a far higher percentage of their incomes than paid by those in the middle- and upper-classes. Such regressive taxation schemes (a.k.a., "user fees") have almost always been favored by self-described "conservatives" (those who want to "conserve" their economic advantage by buying friendly legislation).
[/b][/quote]

Social security is the most regressive tax system ever devised in the nation. It offers a very bad deal for the poor, and minorities. Conservatives did not create that vast ponzi scheme problem either.

Any truly fair tax system charges the same percentage to all. Calling anything else fair is a lie, and an oft repeated lie at that.

Has anyone ever considered that exempting someone from paying their fair share of the cost of government is demeaning? If everyone ponied up the same percentage of tax, then it is in every taxpayers interest to see to the existence of good government. Removal of taxes from lower incomes takes away the incentive to participate in the political process as well, so the incentive to vote is reduced.

But liberals are too interested in class warfare politics and inducments of hate toward groups to grasp those moral truths.

 

One more note about paying for roads:

The addiction to moving loads via heavy truck is rooted in the regulation by the federal government of the railroad industry. Once the feds took over pricing, etc. then all incentives that the market provides for constant improvement vanished and product substitution occured, that is goods movement went to trucking.

One large truck does the damage of 9900 passenger cars on the roads, so if heavy trucks were taxed according to damage inflicted, then rail shipment of goods, which is vastly more fuel saving, would take place.

When socialist schemes to control industry are enacted, it always produces bad results.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"82936)</div>

That would be all those darn liberals who now control Congress and the White House?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"83034)</div>

I agree that this proposal is stupid. I'm left wondering, however, where you got the idea that this is a "liberal" proposal.

As you point out, gas taxes (and mileage taxes) are regressive, costing working-class people a far higher percentage of their incomes than paid by those in the middle- and upper-classes. Such regressive taxation schemes (a.k.a., "user fees") have almost always been favored by self-described "conservatives" (those who want to "conserve" their economic advantage by buying friendly legislation).
[/b][/quote]

Social security is the most regressive tax system ever devised in the nation. It offers a very bad deal for the poor, and minorities. Conservatives did not create that vast ponzi scheme problem either.

Any truly fair tax system charges the same percentage to all. Calling anything else fair is a lie, and an oft repeated lie at that.

Has anyone ever considered that exempting someone from paying their fair share of the cost of government is demeaning? If everyone ponied up the same percentage of tax, then it is in every taxpayers interest to see to the existence of good government. Removal of taxes from lower incomes takes away the incentive to participate in the political process as well, so the incentive to vote is reduced.

But liberals are too interested in class warfare politics and inducments of hate toward groups to grasp those moral truths.
[/b][/quote]

Having seen how you behaved in another "discussion" here on PC, I'm not going to bother getting into a "discussion" with you, Robert. I'm pretty sure it would be futile to explain to you where you are wrong, and I'm really not interested in a tedious shouting match with an ideologue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Herb\";p=\"83006)</div>

It would be interesting to see which industry group drafted this proposed legislation. I'm wondering whether it might be the trucking industry. After all, if US drivers actually do start moving toward fuel-efficient cars (as they did in the seventies), that would, vehicle-for-vehicle, drive down the amount of taxes collected for road construction and maintenance. The gas tax rate will have to be raised to make up the difference, and that will fall most heavily on the trucking industry, whose vehicles are unlikely to make any efficiency gains over the next 20 years.