Dumb Idea of the Week: Repealing the Gas Tax Because Too Many People Drive Priuses

to paraphrase - 'gee, we're not bringing in enough money on gas tax because a dem der hybrid cars, so, um, let's get rid of de gas tax (mistake #1) and let's go after those weasels (who already pay more for their alt. vehicles) by chargin' dem a 100 bucks extra a year in registration fees, yuck, yuck (dumb idea of the decade)'

I hope this oil lover falls in a pool of crude oil for his swimming pleasure.

Pathetic.

 

Whoever came up with that idea is not very bright!
It is like punishing the people who trying to do good with the environment and reward those people who kept on guzzle gas.

 

Being a Politician does not mean that you are necessarily smart and or intelligent!
This supports that theory!

 

In general, it is politically incorrect for a repub to admit that cheap oil addiction is folly. The Gov is just playing to his audience.

As for the isolated problem of a levy to maintain the roads, it makes sense to tax consumption. Here the idea is to find a consumption proxy for Prius owners, since the gas tax is being skirted.

So the Gov is not wrong in wanting Prius owners to pay their fair share; his problem is being wrong about everything else that is fossil fuel related.

 

This increases the vehicle cost without regard to usage. So folks who marginally own a vehicle will be pushed over the edge . . . no transportation. In the past, they might hold off on trips, saving gas. Now that will no longer be possible.

Bob Wilson

 

Yet another example of the low-intelligence ideas coming from politicians...

 

No high opinion of good ol Bob. Pro big oil and anti-green.

But the problem isn't just Priuses but all cars that people are buying that get more MPG than their old ones that ultimately go down the economic chain to the crusher. While a Prius may get 2x the mileage of your old car, even a modern 6-cyl may get 1.5x the mileage of your old V-8. And as everyone downsizes their engines because the CAFE standards make big engines a luxury item (if a manufacturer has big engines, it has to sell darn few of them along with lots of little engine cars to meet the corporate requirements) everyone starts to get more miles for their fuel tax dollars and there are those roads we all use that have to be maintained (every time I wander up 95 I marvel at the roads around Richmond compared to those much busier roads around DC like 66).

Typical...I want but I don't want to pay for it problem government is facing.

 

Why not just charge a fee for every car? Or impose a carbon emissions tax?

 

Most states' gas tax were primarily intended for road/tramsportation maintenance, and generally in the past it worked well. Heavier vehicles causing more wear and tear on the roads than lighter vehicles generally used more gas so they ended up paying more. But with hybrids and now electric vehicles, we're able to drive more miles on less or no gas thereby contributing less tax revenue for road maintenance and upkeep. If the gas tax is eiliminated, it seems the fairest way to tax vehicles so that each are paying their fair share is by weight and mileage since that was how the gas tax was distributed before hybrids/electric vehicle became more mainstream. An annual flat fee could be imposed for weight and then a mileage tax assessed each year per driver. While it may sound logical and easy, what to do about out-of state drivers? There is no easy solution.

 

I'd stay with the gas tax--which is a carbon tax, effectively. However, if it is just designed deal with building highways, it hasn't yet factored in the damage of carbon emissions to the environment. (Economists, am I right about this?)

As jhinsc says, new systems, which we WILL need are really hard. For electric/plug-in hybrid cars, to do a carbon tax, you have to tax electricity based on the carbon-intensity of any given electric company's supplies.

You then tax weight not to tax carbon (already taxed through the fuel tax--though we may want to increase that), but to tax damage to highways (right?).

 

In this country we have fuel taxes - gasoline and diesel, as a country there is no carbon tax. The federal tax pays about 65% of what the federal government spends on roads, even less if you include spending for flood damage. It was last raised in 1993, and a carbon tax was rejected by the congress in the late 90s. The funds are not to pay for damage they are to pay for availability. Building new roads and repairing damaged ones gives a service to those using them even if there is no damage.

Some states may have a carbon tax implied by cap and trade, but the great majority do not. State taxes run from 8 cents a gallon in Alaska all the way up to 49 cents a gallon in NY. IMHO a federal oil tax oil, which would cover that lowest priced state Alaska, with some funds block granted to the states would be most efficient for collection. The federal government could index it to road inflation and lower gasoline use. If a federal carbon tax is needed that is where it should be collected. California collecting their own without a national tax makes no sense at all.

They are not that hard, it just is the government tries really hard not to do the proper things as the PACs do not want them. Regulation to shut down or force to clean up the coal plants pumping out the most SO2, NOx, particulates, and mercury would reduce ghg for electricity the most. But you don't see either party just talking about the sensible.

The idea is to tax use of the highway, with some extra for damage. A guy driving a prius or a guy driving a bmw M3 both do similar road damage and use the road. We don't really have to be fair and gps that M3 driver and charge him less. You can collect at the pump. It doesn't need to be fair, it just needs to have clear rules. The idea of convoluted loopholes and special government equipment to be fair is unfair to the 99.3% of us.

 

we all benefit from the roads, even the person who doesn't have a car gets a benefit when the fire truck, delivery truck, or ambulance uses the roads to provide service to them. the benefit for a prius driver is the same as for a camry driver. imo, all should contribute fairly equally to the cost of road maintenance.

that said, we have policy to promote some behaviors over others.

we don't want to use a "sin" tax like cigarettes and find ourselves dependent on undesired behaviors for revenues. imo, that is the problem with the current fuel tax.

 

The wacky and essentially anti-American "Gov" is definitely wrong.

First off Prius owners do pay MORE than their fair share to reduce US oil imports, reduce US pollution, reduce US national security threats by paying more for their cars.

Second most of road funding, 70% comes from funds other than gas tax such as bond issues which Prius owners pay as much as other taxpayers.

The right wing ideologue governor works for interest of the oil companies and against the national interest of the US.

 

Prii are wrecking the roads a LOT less per gallon of gas than large trucks. So tax the trucks not the Prii.

 

A system where everyone pays a fair flat amount for the benefit that the road and highway systems provides, regardless of vehicle ownership status, AND then an additional tax based on usage and wear and tear would be the fairest system, but almost impossible to quantify and collect. This type of tax system would be collected after-the-fact, therefore open to fraud or "mis-reporting" of actual usage. Until someone can figure this out, the gas tax based on comsumption is the most fair way to do it. The more you use, the more you pay. Electric/non-gas burning vehicles need and should be taxed differently since they don't pay gas taxes. Once that's figured out, maybe it can be transitioned to gas vehicles. Alas, this might all be a fairy tale since gov't's really don't like giving up a current tax in exchange for another, so it usually ends up being another tax piled on top of what we already pay!

 

i wonder how many hybrids are 'too many'?

 

When it starts affecting tax revenue - apparently it already has! Along with generally increasing mpg's newer vehicle are getting, gov't's are starting to fret how to replace and increase the lost tax revenues needed.

 

Actually it hasn't! It's a phony issue.

254,000,000 cars in US. 2,540,000 are hybrids. 1% and they do use gasoline, so maybe 0.3% reduction in gasoline tax revenues could be attributed to hybrids.

That misses the bigger and more important picture in that oil use is killing US economically with $300B oil trade deficit tax, $500B a year in oil war costs, $14T accumulated debt from 30 years of unfunded oil wars and killing US health wise with air and water pollution.

US policy should be ENCOURAGING purchase of high mileage cars, EV, hybrids etc. A more pro-American policy would be to raise gas tax to pay for the $1T per year cost of using oil and to use that money to provide tax credit to high mileage cars like hybrids and EV's. The greater the cars fuel efficiency, the bigger the tax credit.

We need to get that 2,540,000 million number to 254,000,000.

 

Republican Governors... we have a doozy too, trying to sell the PA lottery to England for 20 years cause we Americans is too stupid to run it and another layer of management is good for profits. Idiot. They call Republicans conservatives, but a better name would be consumers, because of their belief in mass consumption. Businesses need people to move and efficent cars and trucks keep people moving no matter the price of fuel. The Virginia fuel tax is too low and should be raised. The neighboring states with higher fuel taxes are hurt by people buying fuel out of state, then using their roads. Virginia is probably selling a lot of fuel to out of staters and they still can't get enough tax money.