Last post on May 03, 2007 at 2:33 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
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?
#326 of 331 Re: Wait a Second !!! 'Splain something to me !!!????!!! [larsb]
May 01, 2007 (9:53 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
May 01, 2007 (10:04 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.
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
May 01, 2007 (11:10 pm)
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
May 02, 2007 (5:13 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
May 02, 2007 (5:17 pm)
"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]
May 03, 2007 (2:33 am)
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.