Mileage tax on hybrids/ev's?

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by massparanoia, May 18, 2012.

  1. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    16,095
    5,976
    54
    Location:
    South OC So Cal & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Yes - in short - the feds supply matching funds for road projects, with (financial) strings attached - of course. Example: If the feds want a 55mph speed limit (to reduce fuel consumption), then in order to get the matching funds, the states have to comply. They're free to not comply, but if they don't - then states that choose to go out of compliance get cut off from fed funds.

    The real crux of the "mileage tax on hybrids/phev" is this: Feds/states can either raise taxes on land barges to keep the coffers full ... or ... they can pass the lost revenue onto the prenatal PHEV/EV industry. It the powers decide that we need to reduce land barges, you can pretty much figure out who the legislator will be taxing. Tax the clean cars, and you can pretty much figure out, the law makers are beholding to the land barge / oil industry ... whether the tax is on the fuel ... or on the individual vehicle, regardless of it's consumption.

    .
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    [rant]
    Raises a finger and not a pinky to nixon on the speed limit. Fed intervention. Saved no gas but you got to take away a little bit of everyone's freedom[/rant]

    Agree absolutely. Eventually registrations may need to go up for plug ins, but for now, fuel taxes seem the right thing to do. But remember we are dealing with state legislatures, and the right thing to us, is often the wrong thing for them. Last time the right thing to do was raise taxes, but instead they cut teachers.
     
  3. markabele

    markabele owner of PiP, then Leaf, then Model 3

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    5,009
    1,722
    1
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    How did it save no gas?
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    According to the literature, people broke the law:D Then you add more cop cars to catch the speeders, which uses gas. Perhaps no gas was a bit strong. Studies said 0.18%, but they did not take into account that cars may have had improved aerodynamics without the law:mad:, which means I don't trust that even that small amount was real.

    Raising Cafe standards in 1975 did reduce gasoline consumption, along with higher prices. When the law was repealed in 1995, and power was returned to the states. Consumption would have dropped faster if new cafe rules had been put into place in the late 80s or 90s. New Cafe standards were not started until 2007.
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-limit-is-unenforceable-and-counterproductive

     
  5. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Driving 55 mph saves about 15% of gasoline use on average per all the scientific studies. We see it today in our mileage ratings and every cars fuel consumption data.

    The most compelling evidence for it working is the work done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the insurance industry research and advocacy group, as pro-business as it gets, so claims of anti-business bias fail.

    The Insurance Institute noted that repeal of the speed limit saw a huge jump of 20% in auto accident fatalities attributable to the increased speed with another 10% to additional drivers on the road, providing a clear indication that motorists were moderating speed per the 55 mph limit and when the limit was off, motorists likewise sped up with the resulting jump in fatalities.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. lamebums

    lamebums Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    101
    29
    0
    Location:
    Southern Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Hi ProximalSuns--

    I had a nice long post cranked out when the site decided to not respond so we'll have to do with a shorter version. :)

    Fact of the matter is, your $10 per gallon gas scheme, fueled by a crushing tax burden, spells utter financial ruin for the working classes of America. They have to drive to school, to work, take the kids places, go to the store, etc. Not everybody has the financial wherewithal to jump up and buy a new vehicle or move when they feel like it.

    Maybe you're one of the fortunate few that can afford to send a $100 check to the United States Treasury every time you fill up your Prius with $30 in gasoline. So go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. But I can't afford $10 a gallon, even with a Prius. And the 99% can't afford $10 a gallon, either.

    That's what we call financial ruin.

    And fines and jail? You imply that, too - since that's how government enforces any kind of unpopular mandate. Because you'd have to find a way to enforce your new laws.

    Nobody's going to pay $10 a gallon when they know $8 of it goes to fund mass transit that few think is safe and fewer still will ever ride because it doesn't go where they need to go, when they need to get there. So they'd start distilling diesel fuel from vegetable oil, or pilfer it at the transfer point. Or buy it in Mexico, where it's less than $2 a gallon if memory serves me correctly.

    Same thing already happens with cigarettes and alcohol. When it's prohibitively expensive in one state, people just drive across state lines. And people get fined/jailed for it all the time. Doesn't stop them.



    Edit: Going to add a little more here. Because it's worth noting that we both agree that dependence on foreign oil - importing even one barrel - puts us at the mercy of Saudi sheiks and leads to bad foreign policy decisions. And we both agree that caring for the environment is a good thing. I oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and would scale back CENTCOM and reduce personnel to a skeleton force.

    We differ on the means. Mainly, that I want people to make that conscious choice of their own free will. People are very open to sensible measures to care for the environment - I see recycling bins all over the city. People choose to make that decision of their own free will.

    You on the other hand must think that the ends justify the means. And that's a very, very dangerous road to travel down.
     
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    What? That's scientific. Someone at a magazine stuck a thumb in the air and said if you go 55 instead of 70 you will use less gas. But we don't really spend that much of our gas going over 55, and when speed limits are arbitrarily low people speed. That is quite different than saying we change the speed limit to 55mph now, we will save gas. The country did the experiment and both the US DOT and National Academy of sciences said, not very much at all. In fact less than properly inflating your tires.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1986/pdf/bg532.pdf

    It says insurance institute. What happens when you get a speeding ticket? Your insurance company can make the rates go up. They also campaign against higher cafe standards, and one claim is we can save gas by lowering the speed limits than making cars more efficient. I'm seeing a little bias here.

    You could quote the study, which doesn't say that at all, but that's ok its all here. University of California says IIHS chery picked roads to test. In there study fatalities actually went down with the new speed limits. There are very few fatalities on interstate higways with higher than 55mph speed limits. These roads have the highest speed limits because they are the safest.
    http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf
    You will note since the congress gave the power to the states, fatalities have gone down. Part of this is new safety devices in cars. Part of it is with higher speed limits cars are traveling at closer to the same speeds. Speed differential causes accidents, well that and drunk or distracted driving.
     
  8. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Not the case in countries that actually have the $10 a gallon cost so your opinion and accompanying hyperbole are contradicted by real world facts.

    Idea behind a gasoline tax, all carbon taxes, is to get people to AVOID THE TAX. It is a totally AVOIDABLE TAX by using less carbon. Buying that Prius, riding the bike, taking the bus/train, moving closer to work, working closer to home, car pooling with co-workers, driving 55, driving less, driving smarter....sooo many ways to avoid paying the tax....to avoid using gasoline.

    The revenue generated, like cigarettes or other damaging to individual and to the country's economy activity, is secondary to reducing the oil use, cutting the $500B per year oil trade deficit tax, the $500B per year military costs to secure imported oil and the $500B per year (pick a number) cost for air, water and climate pollution.
     
  9. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    The accident stats, the jump in fatalities noted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, clearly indicates that people were driving slower when 55 mph was the rule and started driving faster when the rule was lifted.

    It's an industry group so one can't claim a "tree hugger" bias. Those are hard data numbers not the "estimates" of other studies.
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    The IIHS is not a scientific group, its a PAC for insurance companies. It does research but according to the University of California, it did extremely bad research here. It only looked at a few roads, and not the affect on the system. If it was an honest research group it would have addressed the UCTS highlighted problems with their research. By moving more traffic to faster safer roads the net accident rate went down. The TEXDOT has done its own studies. It moved the speed limit of some roads to high, but has since corrected it. The stretches at 75 mph are extremely safe, there is a stretch through town at 55mph on the interstate because it is not as safe with short onramps. Fatalities have continued to go down inspite of the IIHS prediction.

    Who are you going to trust a PAC with a flawed study that wants more trafic tickets or a study by a major university that is attempting to get unbiased facts. We have had 17 years and accidents have continued to go down. Read the link. Don't trust a fake study and your gut. Your gut is wrong.

    here is what the IIHS says today
    http://www.iihs.org/news/default.html#032312
    Note fatalities are down post speed limit rise not up.

    More lives are saved by air bags, and the move to safer highways. The accident rate on the autobahn with no speed limits is steller. Technology, not criminalizing the population is actually working. The only years that highway safety went down were in the mid 70s when the 55mph was active.
     
  11. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Insurance Institute of Highway Safety has the most extensive car safety program in the US, more than US Dept. of Transportation. IIIHS crash tests are the gold standard and have caused US DOT to change its testing to match.

    The research it does on accidents and causes is based on US DOT stats.

    No one argues with the IIHS stats (US DOT stats) showing that auto fatalities jumped 30% after the 55 mph speed limit was removed. 10% could be attributed to increase in miles driven and the other 20% was due to the higher speed.

    So the claim that 55 mph did not have an effect is clearly disproven by the post 55 mph stats. Nothing else explains the jump in fatalities.
     
  12. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Here is the NHTSA in the critical period
    Overview Traffic Safety Facts 1996
    Fatalties per population dropped, it did not go up as IIHS claimed.

    If you trust in fake data, you will get a poor result. IIHS chery picked some roads. It decided that there were 400 extra deaths, that is out of over 40,000. They did not look at how traffic moved from less safe roads to safer roads. UC looked at the entire change. Over a 5 and 10 year period fatalities and accidents went down, directly contradicting IIHS prediction. IIHS is proven false when looking at the stats. In 1995 before the law was repealed over 80% sped in my state according to TexDOT, which helps explain why there wasn't much of a change. Once the new limits were in place and adjusted fatalities dropped. IIHS has a new 2009 study which it claims 3% higher fatalities from the speed limits. I guess the old number was so laughably wrong they need to get with a new one. At 3% there are so many factors out there, that it is hard to tell. One thing is for sure, changing signs will not make people obey. Isn't it better to make the least safe roads safer, or get people off them, instead of encourging people to break the law.
     
  13. lamebums

    lamebums Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    101
    29
    0
    Location:
    Southern Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Hi ProximalSuns--

    If you'd taken the time to read the rest of my previous post, you would see that a lot of what you describe is difficult or even impossible for the 99 percent. The guy living paycheck to paycheck can't rightly sell his house and move back into the crime/drug ridden city centers and/or buy a brand new vehicle just on a whim.

    I don't know what the state of mass transit in your area is, but around here it's disgusting and dangerous. It's bad enough that it makes the papers when certain suburban cities refuse to permit the transit authority to even place bus stops within their city limits. (Without naming names, of course. :))

    And bicycles are dangerous and impractical beyond a few miles or when the weather's uncooperative. The Europeans have pulled it off because their population densities are far, far higher than here in the States. This is not something that you can change overnight - and in any case people don't want to move back into the cities. People live in suburbs for a reason. Crime, drugs, noise, taxes, etc. And they don't want to move back. So why force them?
     
  14. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Chuckle. Truer words never spoken. Insurance Industry Institute for Highway Safety has an established record of integrity and solid data based work.

    A guy on the internet "cherry picking some roads", not so much.

    No one really disputes the IIHS on auto safety. Much of the safety of cars today is due to IIHS crash tests and statistical data work on crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, all types of auto safety design. It is internationally respected for its work.
     
  15. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,231
    1,558
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Legislation aimed at hybrids and EVs, while presented in terms of 'making them pay their way', actually serve as a detriment to owning them. This may be the whole idea from the lobbyist's point of view, but for society as a whole, it's the wrong idea. Plus, it may well backfire. Once the 'user pay' philosophy becomes popular, it's conventional transportation that will pay the price, because it receives bigger subsidies.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,707
    3,428
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I get it now. You don't know how to read a chart. The statistics say traffic fatalities did not change in any statistically significant way. Traffic fatalities continued to go down when the states set the speed limits. IIHS predictions proved to be false.

    THat would be the IIHS. Almost every major state university has done its own study and none agree with IIHS predictions. I am sorry you can not read the stats I linked from NHTSA.
    Ofcourse they do!
    Archived Blog: 55 MPH: No Blood for Oil
    We can raise cafe standards and state set speed limits and still have safe cars. We do not need to follow poor data.
     
  17. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    But he can cut his gasoline use by a lot with no impact on necessities saving a lot of money. Gasoline use has great elasticity, meaning people waste it doing stuff they don't need to do. He can car pool with the other guys living paycheck to paycheck, as an example.

    And a good part of the reason there are no jobs is US exporting $500B worth of jobs just to pay for oil use in the US. US is borrowing $500B a year to pay for planes, ships, tanks and people to secure that gasoline. Put that $1T a year back in US economy and the guy gets a better job, better pay, buys a Prius, uses less gas, more money back into economy, a virtuous economic circle.

    Taxing gasoline is good for everybody especially those living paycheck to paycheck who suffer the most from the oil costs that kill US jobs.
     
  18. massparanoia

    massparanoia Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    697
    467
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2011 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Proof? Source? How is making a consumer commodity more expensive helping the guy who lives on a fixed amount of income? Are you going to triple his salary when you triple the cost of a gallon of gas?
     
  19. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Nope. He'll cut his gasoline use by 60% driving to work with two of his work buddies and making the kids walk to the mall.

    We waste gasoline on non-essential stuff.

    Plus, if we taxed gasoline for its $1T trade deficit/military per year cost to the nation, it would be done in increments so people could adjust over 8-10 years.
     
  20. lamebums

    lamebums Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    101
    29
    0
    Location:
    Southern Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm pretty sure this should go up on the wall of shame as "the most idiotic things ever said."



    I feel like I'm trying to beat my head against a brick wall here - you've completely closed off your mind to the entire outside world of ideas out there. You've convinced that our entire economic crisis is caused by oil war spending, and that somehow taxing people to the hilt will solve the issue. And you clearly won't budge an inch.

    And with that, I'm out of this discussion.
     
    2 people like this.
Loading...