As usual, Tim the Enchanter makes perfect sense. And in general, I think that we hybrid-enthusiasts can be a bit trigger-happy when it comes to perceived attacks on our vehicular technology.

On the other hand, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get us...

 

The way I read that summary, it mentions hybrids almost in passing and doesn't attempt to single them out. It's the media that picked up the story that singled out hybrids, because they sensed the controversy that could create - which is always good for ratings.

What I hear the USCoC saying is that highway taxation purely by gasoline consumption will become less fair the more we develop alternative technologies. And I think they are right. Consider that the highway fund is not only used to fix potholes. It is also used to add lanes, interchanges, etc. These are for the benefit of all vehicles equally, regardless of their FE. It seems fair that everyone using a new lane or on-ramp on the highway would pay an equal share in its construction.

As an extreme example, take my Toyota RAV4 EV. I've got all you people screwed. I charge it up at home and don't pay one red cent into the highway fund. Is that fair? I honestly don't think so, although I'm going to take advantage of it as long as it lasts.

 

The highway funds will certainly have to come from some where. It's a flawed strategy to tax the very thing we need to conserve, and ultimately stop using. I think we're just on the leading edge of what's to come as politicians try to figure this out. We'll eventually need a better answer than taxing gas. If we don't, now motivated will politicans be to conserve that which provides a source of income?

 

Why can't they do something simple like just check your odometer at inspections? Don't they already do that in some states? People pay yearly or so house taxes why not a yearly car tax?

Of course, the best idea would be for the government to use the existing dollars on what they were supposed to be used for instead of stealing from one fund to pay for some special projects of the high ranking members of congress.

 

The toll roads I use charge by weight or number of axels.

What a revolutionary concept - charge by the amount of wear your vehicle inflicts on the roads.

 

Odometer fraud would go through the roof. As for a car tax, I could swear every state already charges that. Is Illinois some bizzare exception where you don't have to register your car with the state?

 

Like we really need another tax here in Taxachusetts. We already
have to pay a yearly excise tax of $25/$1,000 of blue book value. (Used to be $100/$1,000) And the bill always comes around April 15. How nice it that.....And the roads are still crap.... Money goes to pay all the pol's bloated retirement/pensions......

 

Bummer.. I think registration was $38 on my 97 Civic HX last year. Sure, it was $350 when brand new, but it drops way off every year after. A friend of mine paid something like $8/year for his '75 CVCC.

 

I don't know exactly how the vehicle license tax works in AZ, but it goes something like this: The first year the vehicle is registered, you pay the tax based on MSRP for that vehicle. The next year, they deduct something like 15% off MSRP and tax you on that. The following year, another 15% comes off your previous year's total for the taxable amount. And so on. I need to find where that tax information is, so if you find it, please post it.

I think VA does something similar. The "estimated value" of my '59 Ford was $250 three years ago! (I didn't register it since then since the car is back in VA and I'm out here in AZ now. Military...)

I have the tax form for my motorcycle next to me now (I have to go get it emissions tested today so that I can re-register it) and it says first registered 01/1998, list price $11,499, vehicle license tax $48.26.

 

I heard about the tax and the US Chamber of Commerce first on the morning radio as I was driving to work (it was probably NPR; definitely not some conservative talk show). My first reaction was alarm, which many of you seem to share, but then I started leaning towards skepticism and even a few chuckles. Really, it's such a bad proposal that it's almost funny. Although the Enchanter makes a valid point, that the government can't go on taxing gas forever to pay for the roads if we're really going to reduce our gas consumption, that's so far away as to be politically unimportant. Legislatures aren't known for taking the long view. Right now gas consumption is still going up, up, up!


Maybe once the American car manufacturers really start to get going on hybrid production, as they are talking so much about right now, and when they become as common on the roads everywhere as they are in some parts of California, legislatures will need to revisit this issue. In the meantime, adjusting the way cars are taxed to try to pay for road improvements and make sure everyone pays their 'fair' share is just not going to happen this way. The loss of tax due to better gas mileage simply does not compare, proportionally, to the increase in wear and tear from bigger and heavier vehicles. Whatever unfairness there is between the gas taxes paid by hybrids v. others is much less than the unfairness in the same tax on trucks v. passenger vehicles. The ratio someone provided for wear and tear was 3000 :1. I remember reading 200:1 in a Chicago Tribune article once, (to clarify- the damage to a road done by one truck driving on it is that of 200 cars on the same stretch) but even if it's somewhere vaguely in that range, the numbers just dwarf the difference between hybrids and other cars.


Let's say a loaded truck gets 10 mpg and a hybrid gets 50 mpg- that's a ratio of 5:1, so the tax would be reduced at that proportion, but that's nothing compared to 200 or 3000 times more wear and tear. Even 10:1 would barely register. So before the feds get around to instituting a hybrid tax, a more thoughtful voice will mention trucks, (nothing against trucks- they have their social utility, of course) and how many more trucks there are than hybrids. If the goal is, as you say, just to raise money and not to change people's behavior and consumption choices, then the hybrid tax idea won't get off the ground.