Michigan considered hybrid road fee but nixed it for now

This is absolutely insane! Please tar and feather someone.

 

Which is exactly the opposite of what the $4C program was about, getting a vehicle with better fuel economy.

 

Don't be surprised to see stuff like this, or a "mileage tax" where you pay per mile driven.

Two reasons: 1) people are driving a lot less because of the cost of gas and the economic slowdown, so revenues from the gas tax used for road repairs are too low to meet costs, and 2) people in gas guzzlers think the gas tax is unfair.

If legislators want to make up the gap in road repair costs, AND encourage energy efficiency, they should be increasing the gas tax. But they won't, so we can expect to see more flailing around like this stuff.

 

I know the "mileage tax" has been discussed in the NC papers due to the very reasons that you give above.

 

If it's $75, all they have to do is raise the annual registration fee by a couple dollars or so for everybody. Problem solved.

Likewise, I'm surprised California isn't pushing to end hybrids from being exempt for smog checks sooner so they'll have an excuse to charge their annual "smog abatement fees" between renewals.

 

I am in total agreement with this law. hybrids use roads just as much as any other car. Hybrid owners should be required to pay their fair share of road tax as well.

 

I have to say that I agree with the concept, also, even though it will cost me more. The states are going to have to find a way to increase their income to keep the roads repaired in the face of lower gas usage. The fairest (most fair ?) way would be for those that drive the most miles to pay the most tax.

The normal problem with something like this is when the politicians start adding all of the loopholes.

 

sorry, its not a law

if they want to be fair then put sensors on everyone's car and charge them for actual mileage driven (this is in discussion in one state).

 

but wouldn't heavier, thirstier cars and trucks cause more wear than our 3000# Prius?

 

Why not put a flat "road fee" in the annual registration (which everyone pays) rather than in gas? No usage problem to worry about.

After all, we pay for public schools in the form of property tax whether or not we have kids to send to school so I don't see how this should be any different.

 

And your argument / solution is based upon....?

Why single out hybrids? Better for the environment and energy consumption. Why not a sliding scale based upon MPG (higher mpg pays lower tax, etc). Just imagine the complexity of administering...

So if more revenue needs to be generated, subject Hybrid owners to a flat tax. Oh, OK, that will solve the problem. Sounds as if the political genius on this just arrived back from California, fixing their economic issues.

Why does government ALWAYS shift to 'increase the tax' kneejerk? How about looking at the other side of the ledger and cut expenses, as the public does when things get tight.

BUT, if more $$ is truly needed - simply add a penny to the state gas tax. Hardly anyone would notice and transaprent to administer.

 

That proposed law and this discussion are nuts. Just raise the friggin gas tax. Only a state with as many stupid people as Michigan would consider something this idiotic.

OOPS! Just remembered Detroit is in Michigan. Now it makes perfect sense.

 

"But hybrids use the roads for free when they operate solely on electric power. It's only after the gasoline engine kicks in (at about 30 mph) that drivers begin to pay to use the roads."

This is ridiculous. Where do they think is the electricity coming from? A hybrid, unless it's a plug-in, drives solely on gasoline power, as much as any other car. It is just more efficient.

 

Something like 95% of everything that is sold retail is moved in
trucks. Even people who don't drive and don't even own a car
benefit from -- no, make that desperately need -- the national
highway system and the State Road feeder system. .

As the recent record setting snow falls in the Middle Atlantic states,
and even the earthquake in Chile demonstrate, life in a modern
urban environment where the road transport segmant of the support
system is non-functioning is hell:
* supermarket shelves go bare,
* home fuel tanks run dry,
* out-going and incoming mail is undeliverable,
* emergency services are delayed or unavailable,
* milk has to be dumped down the drain at dairy farms,
* schools are closed, etc.

Any plan to isolate hybrids as a revenue stream is political chicanery
and opportunism. The only reason to believe that the idea can get
any traction at all is that there are so relatively few hybrids on the
road now, IIRC, ~3% of new cars purchased.

Every single person who does not live on a fully self sustaining,
off-the-power-grid homestead needs good roads.
* As a starting point, everyone should pay something, because
everybody needs the system just to maintain the fundamental real
needs to sustain life and social order. Even, maybe especially,
Granny in an assited living facility
* Anybody with a car needs or at least uses the roads. They should
pay more, gas tax is as good a fair way to get this portion.
Subsidies for vehicle fuel should be slowly reduced and finally be
eliminated -- 5-10 years?. Drivers should pay the real cost of the
fuel they burn.
* High highway users should pay more, say a fee based on mileage
beyond some figure, say 20K miles per year, when the registration is
renewed.
* Heavy vehicles are more destructive, they should pay more, which
they already do. Ultimately everyone pays these fees as a portion of
the retail cost of everything they buy.

What rational, fair-minded person could object?

I mean, other than BS politicians and thier vested-interest travelling-
companion swine trying to protect thier publicly funded slop-troughs.

 

Exactly what I was going to point out. This just shows the ignorance about what a hybrid vehicle is and where it gets its power. Its so simple, if it doesn't plug in its a 100% gas/diesel powered vehicle.

 

Michigan needs more money for nearly everything, especially for roads. Where the rest of the country has been crying during the recent recession, we have been there for a decade. Cutting spending is not going to work.

As for a hybrid tax, that's just more silliness. We already have registration fees and fuel taxes. One or both of these needs to be raised to make up for the shortfall. What we don't need is another narrow band-aid tax that will have unintended consequences.

Tom

 

I'll pay more when the Amish in my state have to pay to use the roads with their horse drawn buggies. This whole idea flys in the face of getting us off of foreign oil! This stinks worse than the $hit from the Amish horses. Gawd who thought of this moronic idea.

 

It's all about money. Surely, everyone could see this coming. More fuel efficient vehicles = lower tax income for the politicians to spend. All the environmental "green" goals vanish quickly when lower gas consumption lessens the cash flow to the state and federal coffers.

The same occurs when home owners install solar panels .... the utility companies profits are impacted .... investors suffer. There arises a cry that a balance must be found, and it is always higher taxes.

 

The gasoline tax is asymmetric - use more gas, pay more toward road upkeep, regardless of mileage or weight of vehicle. A mileage tax would do the same thing, but since road upkeep isn't paid for in full entirely by gas taxes (both federal and state income tax funds - even from people who don't drive at all - are also used), it's ridiculous to say that it would be more "fair".

But the gasoline tax serves an additional purpose: to encourage greater efficiency (and less dependence on foreign oil) by forcing those who use more, to pay more - it might even be said that that is the primary purpose of the gas tax, not as revenue. A "hybrid tax" would have the opposite effect.

As I said earlier, it isn't hybrids causing the shortfall - it's the economy, stupid.