Yearly $75 hybrid fee WA State

I unfortunately unchecked ignore, so I got some of the drift of the argument. The abuse of federal power by Alexander Hamilton by using an army to collect taxes. The Whiskey rebellion, not only established the federal governments right to tax, the raw government power mobilized Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr against Hamilton and the federalists. The Democratic Republicans of Jefferson defeated Hamilton's federalists in an election and the tax was repealed. That was only a part of Jefferson's problem with Hamilton. I found the hbo documentary on adam's an excellent introduction to disputes between the two men, and its entertaining to watch if you can not trouble yourself to learn details of the history of the US.

I guess we can all draw our own conclusions of Burr killing Hamilton in a dual. No it was not because of the whiskey tax, but that was part of the bad blood. Still for those that want to unfairly use the army to collect excessive taxes in a power grab, the cautionary tale of Hamilton's hubris should not be simplified into those farmers were wrong the government has the power to tax whatever it wants.

 

Any energy consumption tax is regressive by nature - both rich and poor also need to have an incentive to be more energy efficient - but the higher cost of energy has a bigger impact on the poor than on the rich. Today, most of the variation( which is currently about 33% percentage of the price of gas) in cost of gasoline/diesel fuel is not due to production cost ( slightly over $2 USD) or taxes but from market speculation(there are two points in market speculation as of this time: [1] Wall Street oil futures contracts and [2] regional distribution contracts for gas/diesel/oil). The maximum price of gas is currently set not by how much it cost to make gasoline or diesel -- but on how much the market will bear - or in more precise terms -- how much most drivers are willing to pay before they stop driving because they can no longer afford to. In this scenario, holding the line on a gas tax to try to keep the cost of energy down is like the little Dutch boy putting his finger in a leaky dike/dam with hopes of saving the village from a flood - it just isn't going to be effective. Lower gasoline tax just give speculators more room for profit. Given that the US consumption, supply, and distribution of gasoline and diesel is based soly on price (and is not rationed based on need) - gasoline and diesel fuel essentially goes to who can pay for it - and that is normally the highest bidder - so consuming gasoline and diesel by nature is an economically regressive act. As long as we as a society make price is the deciding factor then the poor will suffer and the question is not whether they will or will not suffer but to what degree will they suffer. Lastly, the poor consist of more than just families but also retirees, the unemployed, students, and other working individuals.

The cost of maintaining roads used is not uniformly distributed by the miles driven by a vehicle but where a vehicle drives. Miles driven which include a bridge or a tunnel require more funding to maintain than a stretch of crowned asphalt road. In addition, regional climate support (e.g. road salt during the winter) and associated static infrastructures operations (highway rest-stops, traffic lights, sidewalks, etc ) add variability in transportation infrastructure cost. As the ITEP "Building a Better Gas Tax" asserts, some regions have a higher transportation infrastructure cost than others and need a higher revenue stream to sustain their existing transportation network.

Reducing a region's overall aggregate gasoline/diesel fuel consumption and making the region's economy more energy efficient has the effect of helping a regional economy become more economically competitive and sustainable.

 

No. I was trying to show how silly the extra tax on hybrids really is

Mike

 

Here's the problem we face in VA and WA, once the voters are told by our elected officials that Hybrids need to be taxed because they are not paying their fair share of taxes, even if that is a falsehood, many people are going to say, it is only fair that Hybrids pay their fair share of taxes. So then we need our elected officials to reverse themselves and confess that they were wrong, and communicate that Hybrids really are paying their fair share. But its a hard communication to expect to happen. In VA at least we know the governor only serves 4 years, so we can hope the next guy fesses up. But I think the new guy will not go there unless he has to. WA should nip this in the bud.

What I have been trying to argue for in VA is a study to see what cars are bringing the most taxes already. I am pretty sure Hybrids are at the top of the list, but right now it is just political fight, nobody interested in studies. Try to get WA issue out of the shoot-from-the-hip mentality. Lets have a impartial study and go by the recommendations.

 

Sorry, should have added . I knew you weren't from your tone, but legislatures in Oregon proposed exactly that miserable scenario.

 

Since I made the reference to Whiskey Tax by the first US Congress, I understand it more than you who made no reference to it. You made a vague generalization we hear repeated by ideologues of the failed Reaganomics that taxes used to be good and now they are bad...statements that have no basis in US history.

To the tax on oil, it should be taxed not just for roads but to pay back the $14T in debt that the US oil wars ran up over the last 30 years. We should tax oil to make it more expensive to discourage its use so we use less, import less, do not need oil imports, don't need to destroy our national heritage, pollute less and develop more advanced energy efficient technology.

To the point of the Prius and EV's, they should be provided tax credits for achieving all the goals that are essential to combat the No. 1 threat to US national security, US energy efficiency and oil imports.

 

Because even a liberal state like WA has wacky right wingers proposing taxing fuel efficient cars when we should be giving fuel efficient cars tax breaks.

 

Sponsor Senator Eide, Democrat, is Majority Floor Leader.

 

There are right wingers in both parties.you can tell the right wingers as they vote against non~oil using EV's when country faces multiple crisis due to oil use.

 

Please send Senator Eide these numbers:

Here is my technical analysis of WA state hybrid fee. I am using the 10-year state tax estimator discussed in another thread (see below) based on a Toyota Camry hybrid vs. the equivalent non-hybrid Camry model.

Detailed calcs attached for your review. Summary:

A. Non-hybrid Camry (owned 1o-yrs in WA)

Sales Tax: $2450
Fuel Taxes: $2400
Total Taxes: $4850

B. Hybrid Camry (owned 10-yrs in WA)

Sales Tax: $2793
Fuel Taxes: $1639
Hybrid Fee: $750
Total Taxes: $5182

Meanwhile the Hybrid saves $4620 in gasoline payments to the oil companies, but the owner paid $3500 more to Toyota to get that savings. So the Hybrid owner is ahead $1120, that is until he meets Senator Eide who wants his own $332 chunk of that $1120, so the Hybrid owner finally ends up $788 after 10-years.

Bottom line the Hybrid pays more taxes than a non-Hybrid, due to the proposed new WA hybrid fee. This is regrettably similar to VA, but VA wants more ($805) excess tax on a Hybrid in this case.

Here's the tax case: CAMRY HYBRID @ 41 MPG versus CAMRY ICE @ 28 MPG. I assumed the Camry Hybrid costs $28,500 vs. $25,000 for ICE Camry (+$3500 for Hybrid). I assumed 12,000 miles per year driven, because this Camry is for me, a semi-retiree. I also assumed today's fuel cost (about $3.40 wholesale before state + fed gaso taxes). I assumed holding both CAMRY's for 10-yrs ownership. I used 56 cents total state + federal gaso taxes for WA, and 9.8% sales tax.

Read more: http://priuschat.com/#ixzz2P33iyRxv

 

^^^^
My guess is it won't do much good with Senator Eide, but might with others in the state government and the voting population. The other thing is how little money this will actually raise for the state, if it shifts people to buy the non-hybrid. Those that want the tax probably like the extra $330 in taxes per camry hybrid, and the fact that only a small percentage of voters will pay the tax, not enough to get mad at them. The thing is the higher fuel use in Washington State comes with not much revenue.

 

^^^Yes the Hybrid Fee seems like a small revenue generator, why bother? Virgina's argument is they want to be prepared for the day when more green cars are on the road. But seems more like hybrids are easy target, and other less noble rationale (which I can only speculate).

I am inclined to sue the states for the Hybrid fees, but question: are they just allowed tax anything they want, like people born in August? makes about as much sense.

 

Is this a plug in?

DBCassidy

 

States are finally catching on: less fuel used, less road taxes takened in. This is the "new" revenue enhancement more states are setting up.

DBCassidy

 

How little tax revenue it will raise period as there are so few EV's and hybrids on the road 2-3% max that it will have no impact there.

The point of the tax is to punish and discourage high mileage vehicle owners when good public policy is to reward high mileage car purchases. EV's and hybrids should have big tax credits attached.

 

Good try but, general statements like this, with no evidence to support them, don't work with me. People that make general statements lose all credibility.

I'm surmising that you are either
a) a person that posts vile comments hoping to piss people off or
b) someone who has a very narrow view and attributes anything negative to "right wingers"

You might want to try thinking about what you post before you post it.

In God I trust, all others must provide evidence. You have provided none.

 

Did you really expect anything different from the latest incarnation of ProximalSuns?