Ask the Car People.SM


Highway funding ideas include taxes on hybrids - READ ONLY

331 messages,  Last post on May 03, 2007 at 3:33 AM

You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Hybrid Cars

Messages Page 34 of 34

#322 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [larsb] by gagrice

Apr 28, 2007 (12:25 am)

Replying to: larsb (Apr 27, 2007 6:19 am)
You wrote a lot to say very little. My perspective is the higher percentage of hybrids bought in CA are driving higher mileage paying less into the highway fund. I am not the one that brought this to the forefront. I have posted all the proposed legislation and discussion on charging for gas tax by the mile. Oregon being at the leading edge already have cars equipped with GPS devices that charge for miles driven when you fill your tank. It is the inevitable next step to cover those driving hybrids, CNG & electric vehicles.
 
Hybrid drivers are not Paying their fair share!

#323 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [gagrice] by larsb

Apr 30, 2007 (6:28 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Apr 28, 2007 12:25 am)
Wait Gary - you meant to say:
 
"TDI DRIVERS and Hybrid drivers and any drivers getting more than 40 MPG are not paying their share."
 
Right?
 
Who, by the way, sets the demarcation line?
 
Who would it be that determines that cars over xx MPG are "not paying enough" and cars under xx MPG are "paying too much?"
 
My perspective is that the only way high mileage vehicles could in ANY WAY be affecting road tax collections is if the number of miles driven was going UP but gasoline usage was going down. Because that's what a hybrid does - it allows you to drive more miles on less fuel.
 
If the whole trend in the USA is "driving more miles but using less fuel" then you can fairly say that high mileage cars are having an impact.
 
Problem is that is not happening.
 
Miles driven are going up SLIGHTLY and consumption is going up SLIGHTLY.
 
Blaming that on less than 3 percent of the drivers on the road is kindy silly............

#324 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [larsb] by gagrice

May 01, 2007 (9:43 am)

Replying to: larsb (Apr 30, 2007 6:28 am)
"TDI DRIVERS and Hybrid drivers and any drivers getting more than 40 MPG are not paying their share."
  
Right?
 
Not really. Diesel cars are blocked from new sales in CA. In reality the EV-1 is the vehicle that started the dialog of taxing high mileage vehicles. If the mandate had held up and 10% of the vehicles were Electric, you can see the hit on highway taxes. Instead CARB opted for the dirtier hybrids and are losing tax dollars. I would imagine that hybrids currently outnumber diesel cars in CA by at least 100 to 1. That makes the hybrids the problem.
 
You seem to think I am the one questioning the high mileage cars and gas tax. It is the state legislatures in several states. None of them listen to me. Nebraska has a hybrid tax. Oregon is testing a mileage tax, and CA never met a tax that it did not want in on.
 
I would say your figure of 3% may be high across the nation. In CA there are a good number of hybrids and they are the ones putting on the miles and plugging up the HOV lanes. Something should be done and probably will in spite of your feelings toward the hybrids. When it happens I look for the high mileage diesel cars to be included. That would be fair.

#325 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [gagrice] by larsb

May 01, 2007 (10:16 am)

Replying to: gagrice (May 01, 2007 9:43 am)
My comment to any state proposing a "mileage tax" would be this:
 
Who sets the "mileage demarcation" cutoff point?
  
Who would it be that determines that cars over xx MPG are "not paying enough" and cars under xx MPG are "paying too much?"
  
My perspective is that the only way high mileage vehicles could in ANY WAY be affecting road tax collections is if the number of miles driven was going UP but gasoline usage was going down. Because that's what a hybrid does - it allows you to drive more miles on less fuel.
  
If the whole trend in the USA is "driving more miles but using less fuel" then you can fairly say that high mileage cars are having an impact.
  
Problem is that is not happening.
  
Miles driven are going up SLIGHTLY and consumption is going up SLIGHTLY.
 
If it was a fact (which it AIN'T) that hybrids and high mileage gassers and high mileage diesels are impacting the gas tax by BILLIONS of dollars as these idiots are estimating, then let me see the figures which show that consumption is going down while miles driven are going up.
 
Where are the facts?
 
All this talk about high-mileage cars all of a sudden bankrupting state coffers is just a "let's blame someone else - hey, how about just blame the new guy on the block?" knee-jerk reaction.

#326 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [larsb] by gagrice

May 01, 2007 (10:53 am)

Replying to: larsb (May 01, 2007 10:16 am)
Who sets the "mileage demarcation" cutoff point?
 
That is not the way it is being looked at. You drive 30k miles per year you will be taxed 3 times more than the guy that drives 10k miles per year. I think Oregon is looking at 1.5 cents per mile. That would be about the same as the current tax on a vehicle getting 15 MPG. Seems the only fair way to tax driving. This is not my idea. It is a solution that Oregon came up with and many states are looking at. I just wish that the money from gas tax was spent to maintain our lousy roads in CA. You go to TX and you see a place that spends the money on roads. Not every other program under the sun.

#327 of 331 If that's what they want to "switch to" then they will LOSE money by larsb

May 01, 2007 (11:04 am)

Read this editorial for a better understanding of why the Oregon "mileage tax" is a total doofus of an idea:
 
Bad Idea Hatching in the Great NorthWest
 
When we consider these distortions, we see that the mileage tax is a poor substitute for the gas tax. It has all the negative features of the gas tax, such as decreasing the number of trips taken and increasing the marginal costs of products shipped via truck. It, however, does not have the positive impact of causing consumers to buy less polluting cars. Any proposal that has less benefits but just as many drawbacks as existing methods can hardly be seen as a positive change.
 
Conclusion
In the summary of the mileage tax, we saw that "if less gasoline is sold, the state will collect less tax revenue, all else being equal." However, this is absolutely no reason for "all else to be equal". If revenues are falling, why not simply raise the gas tax? The ability of consumers to buy gas from other jurisdictions, as well as the price elasticity of demand for gasoline will limit the amount the Oregon government can raise the tax, but it appears to be a far better option than this ill-advised scheme. Raising the rate of taxation in order to combat declining revenues is the obvious answer to Oregon's problem. Quite often the obvious answer is the correct one.

#328 of 331 Re: If that's what they want to "switch to" then they will LOSE money [lars by gagrice

May 02, 2007 (12:10 am)

Replying to: larsb (May 01, 2007 11:04 am)
Do you think the editorial was written by a hybrid owner? I feel the GPS thing is way more than what is needed. Just have your mileage checked when you renew your plates. Charge for the miles you drove the year before. KISS is still my motto.

#329 of 331 Re: If that's what they want to "switch to" then they will LOSE money [lars by larsb

May 02, 2007 (6:13 am)

Replying to: gagrice (May 02, 2007 12:10 am)
Why does everything have to be based on preconceived biases?
 
Regardless of whether the editorial writer is a hybrid owner, his point stands alone without bias:
 
Taxing that way is a disincentive for people to go start and keep buying high mileage cars.
 
It still boils down to the fact that the small (tiny) percentage of high mileage cars on the road are ABSOLUTELY NOT killing the gas tax revenues. Not possible.
 
Your idea about using the odometer to track miles is a good one, better than the cost and complexity of the GPS system.

#330 of 331 Re: If that's what they want to "switch to" then they will LOSE money [lars by stevedebi

May 02, 2007 (6:17 pm)

Replying to: larsb (May 02, 2007 6:13 am)
"Taxing that way is a disincentive for people to go start and keep buying high mileage cars.
  
It still boils down to the fact that the small (tiny) percentage of high mileage cars on the road are ABSOLUTELY NOT killing the gas tax revenues. Not possible."
 
The point is not to encourage or discourage people from buying high MPG cars - the point is to maintain the highway funds. That is the purpose of the proposals.
 
RE: Not impacting us. Well, possibly not yet (I don't have any data either way). But it is pure mathematics that eventually this will be a problem, and the US will have to come up with other funding ideas that don't involve taxes on the gas. I prefer a tax on the engine size, or perhaps gross weight, or just a flat per-mile tax when the license is renewed.

#331 of 331 Re: If that's what they want to "switch to" then they will LOSE money [lars [stevedebi] by tpe

May 03, 2007 (3:33 am)

Replying to: stevedebi (May 02, 2007 6:17 pm)
I think it is inevitable that states and the feds will eventually go to a per mile fee for funding highway projects. That doesn't mean the current gas tax will or should go away. It will just discontinue being a pay for use tax. It will now become a carbon tax that has nothing to do with highway funding. This is consistent with most of the taxes we pay that aren't earmarked for any particular purpose.

Messages Page 34 of 34

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement