On the news last night they were saying that states are not collecting enough tax from gas to maintain the roads properly. One problem was that as gas prices go up, the taxes do not. But the cost of maintenance does because of the use of fuel to maintain the roads. This was on a NY station.
One point they are thinking about is an extra tax for hybrid owners. Their reasoning is we use the roads as much as the next car, but are paying less tax! They mentioned the "tree huggers" were up in arms about it, but did not rule it out

.

 

Why not tax on the wear-and-tear? Tax commute vehicles that weigh over 6000 pounds - there are more of them than hybrids at this time. Yes, I know many of these were purchased with a tax break for supposedly being a "business vehicle". Get my drift?

 

It would be really stupid to tax hybrid drivers extra because they use less fuel, but considering we are talking about the US, I would not be surprised if something like this actually happens.

If they are worried about not getting enough tax from the sale of fuel, why not use a percent instead of a static amount? There are numerous ways to deal with it, but seriously, this has got to be one of the stupidest kind of proposals put forward. Why not tax giant SUVs that cause more wear on the roads?

 

The way it normally works is the heavier the vehicle the more gas they use, therefore pay more tax at the pump. But the hybrids "cheat" the tax by about 30% by using less gas.

 

Putting a percent tax was another option they were talking about on the news. But if it were a straight line percent the government would make more money as the price of gas went up, because the cost of fuel for road repair is not the only cost.

 

If I "cheat" the tax by driving less does that mean I should get another tax applied to me for not driving? I think not.

This sounds like something the anti-hybrid lobby has cooked up for right-wing radio talking points. Overall fuel consumption is not in decline and hybrid adoption is not significant enough to make a dent in it at this point. The same argument could be made for diesels because they are more thermally efficient (some say they save more fuel than hybrids) and there's no calls to tax diesel drivers extra. The argument is pretty fruitless.

 

If you drive less you use the roads less, putting less wear on them. That's the way they look at it.
I think it's a crazy tax, that's why I want more people to know about it. I really don't think it will go through. Maybe this has something to do with why they are reducing the hybrid tax credit for 06?

 

Actually the tax incentive for '06 is increasing dramatically from the current measly ~$500 to $2000 or more, depending on a bunch of factors.

The thing that is so downright retarded about such a proposed tax is that it flies in the face of conservation efforts. If we as a society are trying to reduce middle-east oil dependence then we need to structure taxes and incentives that encourage reduced consumption. It seems so backwards to try to discourage the use of fuel efficient technology by taxing it's use while heavy guzzlers have no additional taxes, even though they cause far more damage to the roads than their additional fuel based taxes cover.

I will be laughing so hard if this come to be law. A perfect model of how not to do things.

 

It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to give tax breaks on the one hand to a technology, then turn around and apply extra taxes to it for the same reason (using less fuel). It's somewhat like subsidizing tobacco farms, then turning around and paying for anti-tobacco campaigns...

I say they should make the fuel tax then a percentage of the price, or perhaps, a flat portion + a smaller percentage of the price. If hybrid use becomes widespread enough to actually lead to lost revenue for fuel tax, then they should [referring to California] actually use all the fuel tax revenue for the roads instead of consuming most of that money for general government programs.

Diesel fuel already taxed much more heavily than gasoline.

The only other thing I've thought about for a hybrid tax is, how they could they differentiate between hybrid drivers who commute 100 miles a day and drive a lot, as opposed to ones who only make short trips? A flat tax would be horribly unfair, especially considering the whole point is to supposedly make the tax base more fairly represent who uses the roads the most. If hybrid drivers are supposed to pay 25% more tax on every gallon of gas... how would that be enforced? Gas stations would have to keep track of who the hybrid drivers are, and charge them (and nobody else unecessarily, of course) more? That woudl be especially hard if I pulled the "hybrid" badge off of my Civic...

Actually, the idea for California is that, instead of a fuel tax, there would be a "miles driven" tax, where CA cars would be required to have a state-owned GPS tracker and transponder on each car, which would charge per mile driven, multiplied by a vehicle weight factor. Extra taxes woudl be imposed during rush-hour. That idea is worse than even a direct hybrid tax, the state has no business tracking exactly when and where I do all my driving, regardless of what kind of car I drive.

 

Hi All:

___Most hybrids are relatively light weight and cause less road damage then most other automobiles on the road. Screw this discussion about taxing hybrids and such. Talk about a dis-incentive to purchase hybrids in the first place when this country needs them now more then ever! Adding more tax to fuel is the answer if the powers that be want to raise more revenue. God only knows the top 1% of income earners are getting tax cuts faster then at any time in history. Where do they think the $’s are supposed to come form? If someone wants to drive an SUV, by all means but like the rest of us, he/she will have to pay for it. We just went through a period where gasoline went from $1.37/gallon to $3.05/gallon in less then 3 years and someone is going to blow up because the FED’s will add anther $0.02 to the price? This whole discussion of taxing hybrids is complete stupidity.

___Now for the real numbers … It appears that the Federally funded highway repair fund will come in about $40 Billion short next year from a surplus previously? A few google searches led me to this? Hmmm. We are spending an extra $75 Billion in Iraq, an extra few Hundred billion on Homeland Security, and both our balance of trade and our overall budget deficits are absolutely upside down and under water. Why not get off the oil habit and do what is right for the country instead? After all, Ethanol from Brazil costs just $0.60/gallon and ~ $1.30/gallon from the US vs. $1.50/gallon after refining crude from OPEC, Russia, US, and the few remaining exporters.

___If we were on Ethanol, Bio, whatever, or at least drove as fuel efficient cars as the Europeans because of $4.00 - $6.00/gallon in fuel taxes, would we have lost almost 3,000 American’s to the likes of Osama Bin Laden at the WTC’s, almost 2,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan and IRAQ, and have crazy megalomaniacs like the Ayatollah and Saddam in the past spewing their own brand of fire and brimstone? WTF is a matter with all of us?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes