California Proposed State Law AB493-Impose Fee on Gas-Guzzlers, Hand Cash to Gas-Sippers by 2011

That isn’t going to work very well. People are going to get mad about that and some may even start fights or whatever over it. Don’t they have a gas-guzzlers tax already or is that a something else. I would not mind getting 2500 for buying a low emission vehicle.

[edit]
I am all for it but what I think should be an exemption in the law that if you have a job or company that requires the big truck and that is why you are buying the truck you don’t have to pay. Obviously this would be for the work trucks and not luxury trucks and SUVs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]422772[/snapback]</div>

I was gonna say, this sounds moderately socialist.... :lol:
with the whole "Board of Equalization" thing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Apr 13 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]422772[/snapback]</div>

We do have a gas guzzler tax. ~$7000 for 12.5 MPG and under, and I think $1000 for 21.5 and under. but there is no CA incentive for high mpg vehicles, just fed tax credit (which is soon to be gone, if not already). so it's pretty much just an raise of the current one with the addition of the incentive.
And there is a break for super-low income and business.... read the article a couple more paragraphs down

 

Way to go Ruskin! Sure it will be unpopular but something must be done. Let's pressure the auto makers to make better vehicles, but why not impose a smog fee (or gas tax?) as well. The more you pollute the more you pay. My lungs would thank you very much. (smog and soot are a big problem where I live)

-Peter B

 

This "graduated fee" makes sense, a sort of "pay it forward" protocol. You pay proportional to fuel consumption and emissions.

Just as electric and natural gas utilities charge more per unit for the more you use (as an incentive to conserve and use less), so it should be with vehicles. The current proposal does not need to look at the odometer, just fuel economy and emissions. Therefor, ZEVs will be charged the least, high emission vehicles will be charged the most.

Excellent!

 

I think it's a good idea too. Kinda like buying green credits for your home energy consumption (Gore). Pretty soon we'll have "Prick" credits so you can honk your horn at the old lady crossing the street in a wheel chair right in front of your car... "It's ok ma'am, I have fifty bucks in prick credits for the day!" "Oh... thanks dear!!" :lol:

 

Who's committing the bigger global warming crime? A prius driver who commutes 30 miles a day or some rich bimbo who drives her hummer to the grocery store once a week?

Just raise the price of gas and use that tax to subsidize the purchase of fuel efficient cars.

 

I'll just register my gas guzzler vehicles in NV and my fuel sippers in CA!
Keep chasing people with money out of the state!

 

I'm a real liberal kinda guy, but this idea is a little much even for me. A better aproach would be to just put a "STUPID" TAX on people who buy certain cars just to show off to thier friends. like Hummer buyers for instance>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Forget about the tax. That's a one shot.

Instead change the registration from being based on the value of the car to emissions.

The more emissions, the more you pay every year when you have to registers. And it doesn't change as the value of the car decreases.

And for those with few emissions, you pay a lot less. If you drive an EV you pay....maybe a token $5 processing fee.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 13 2007, 07:20 PM) [snapback]423085[/snapback]</div>

That's a great idea!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 13 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]423019[/snapback]</div>

That would not be to bad but what about when I am stuck in traffic and look over and a huge suv/truck or the sedan with the big v8 is next to me with one driver obviously getting out of work. at 0-35mph who is worse now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Apr 14 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]423246[/snapback]</div>

Of cousre the hybrid wins out in that situation, but it's all about the number of gallons of gas used. Just because you burn it efficiently, doesn't mean you can't out burn a vehicle that doesn't burn it efficiently. Tax the gas, use the tax for xyz, but the bottomline is it will affect behaviour I think for the better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Apr 13 2007, 05:29 PM) [snapback]423030[/snapback]</div>

And then when you get pulled over they slap a $50K fine on you for illegally registering your vehicle in another state.

Actually, Godiva, the reg fee should go up because the emissions get worse with age. Or perhaps a component of the reg fee is based on the value of the veh and another part is based on its emissions rating.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 14 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]423321[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Currently the reg fee goes down as the value of the vehicle decreases until it plateaus somewhere. Whereas if the fee were based on emissions, the fee would gradually increase. Since we have to get smogged every few years, the emissions fee could be linked to the smog data perhaps. I don't know enough about it. But yes, as a car gets older it would cost MORE to register, instead of less.

The law currently has a tax loophole for purchasing new gas guzzlers. Registration wouldn't.

Now you have the same arguments about people who can't afford to drive anything but an old junker and can't afford to buy a new car. But what we're looking for here is to gradually move people away from high emissions cars to low emissions cars. And as people trade in their newer cars for lower emissions cars, the used car market has newer and probably cheaper cars. Everyone moves up to newer and hopefully less polluting cars. It would be a gradual process. But I think rewarding or penalizing people each year at registration would be a bigger incentive than a one time tax credit/penalty at purchase. It would hurt every year instead of just once.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Apr 13 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]422774[/snapback]</div>

We do, but "light trucks" (includes SUVs, minivans, some vans, and pickups) are EXEMPT from any gas guzzler tax. "Light trucks" also happened to make up 50% of 2006 model year vehicle sales.

See:
http://suvs.about.com/od/fueleconomy/a/jf_gasguzzler.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#guzzler
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s06003.htm

To top it off, currently, vehicles w/GVWR of >8500 lbs. are EXEMPT from being even TESTED for EPA fuel economy and also therefore don't count against the automaker's CAFE #s. This includes vehicles such as the Ford Expedition EL, Hummer H1 and H2, Ford Excursion, Chevy Suburban 3/4 ton and others.

See:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/ For the EL version: "EPA est. mpg: *NA/NA... *Due to weight and vehicle classification, Expedition EL versions are not tested in EPA cycle"

Laws have been passed so that the above vehicles will count against CAFE and get tested for mileage, but AFAIK, it hasn't gone into effect yet.

 

Indeed our first step is to STOP subsidizing the fuel hogs. Then we can work it the other way. But what we're doing now has GOT to stop. Huge credits for buying 6,000+lb trucks. Freaking amazing loophole.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 14 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]423356[/snapback]</div>

The original concept was sound - tax breaks for farm related vehicles to "support our small farmers". It is the implementation that is simply ridiculous. The fact that great big engorged SUVs are in the same category is simply a crime. Though predictable, since it was our congress who did it.