If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Virginia governor Bob McDonnell proposes a $100 fee on hybrid drivers to replace the tax money they're not paying on gasoline. How's that smug taste now?   (wtop.com) divider line 238
    More: Amusing, Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, fees, WTOP  
•       •       •

5912 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 6:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-01 02:35:11 PM
Better than adding an $0.18/kWh tax to electricity.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:27 PM
And quit giving them the good parking spots in the front of my office.  They should have to park in the back lot.  Let the gas guzzlers park up front... makes them drive less, saves the earth.  Right?
 
2013-02-01 02:40:25 PM
Just stop letting these asshats drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.
 
2013-02-01 02:47:15 PM
On Thursday, a senate committee reviewed the $3.1 billion transportation package that would eliminate the state's gas tax and impose the $100 fee.

I have a clever plan to solve the issue of losing that tax revenue from hybrid drivers, Governor Asshat.
 
2013-02-01 02:48:21 PM
Just charge for for coal.
 
2013-02-01 02:53:38 PM

Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.


A 100% snark and satire free comment?

I feel the vapors coming on...
 
2013-02-01 02:57:45 PM
"It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.
 
2013-02-01 03:13:27 PM
I know Republicans want to be wrong on everything, but this is ridiculous.
 
2013-02-01 03:19:52 PM
Just charge them the smell their own farts.
(This will work as long as the South Park model is adhered too!)
 
2013-02-01 03:32:15 PM

Blues_X: "It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.


It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid drivers, and also a few other unrelated taxes (sales tax increase, car registration fee).

In principle this has the sliver of a good idea.... gas taxes pay for infrastructure/road maintenance, and hybrid or electric cars use the road as much as other cars. There is no reason they shouldn't pay equally to maintain these roads.

The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.
 
2013-02-01 03:49:10 PM
hey guys

have you ever seen south park

i have
 
2013-02-01 03:55:40 PM

Supes: The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid. Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.



I think you're probably right about his motives.
 
2013-02-01 04:02:01 PM

Supes: Blues_X: "It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.

It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid drivers, and also a few other unrelated taxes (sales tax increase, car registration fee).

In principle this has the sliver of a good idea.... gas taxes pay for infrastructure/road maintenance, and hybrid or electric cars use the road as much as other cars. There is no reason they shouldn't pay equally to maintain these roads.

The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.


In that case, why not a tax based on actual road usage? If you drive more, you pay more.
 
2013-02-01 04:38:14 PM

propasaurus: In that case, why not a tax based on actual road usage? If you drive more, you pay more.


Probably be way too expensive to administer. A flat fee for all registered cars every year would have to save millions in administrative costs, even if it's not be perfectly fair. Of course, none of this is perfectly fair since cars registered out of state would still get away with paying nothing.

Honestly, the gas tax is probably the most fair to everyone. I could definitely rationalize a small surcharge on hybrids (say $25 a year). Getting rid of the gas tax and putting the main burden on hybrid owners is just ridiculous though. It makes no sense to charge hybrid owners the $100/year fee, and normal car owners no extra fee, when the wear-and-tear on the road is the same.
 
2013-02-01 04:53:01 PM
What next, tax car ownder that decide to carpool or take mass transit?  What about bicycles?

Or how about people that quit smoking or drinking?  Those tax revenues need to be made up somehow, right?

I'd say this is beyond retarded, but I did read an NRO piece yesterday that was critical of Obama condemning the Holocaust.  The bar is set very high (or low).
 
2013-02-01 04:59:18 PM

Solid State Vittles: What about bicycles?


TAX THE FARK OUT OF BICYCLES!!!
 
2013-02-01 05:01:43 PM
Can't tax the rich. Gotta find the money somewhere.
 
2013-02-01 05:06:18 PM

Supes: Probably be way too expensive to administer


Non-arterial roads (read: side streets) should be paid for by property taxes against the properties facing on those roads.  Even if you don't drive [much], they are essential for goods and services to your home.

For arterial roads and expressways, let a per-mile tax kick in when the roadway is excessively expensive to build or maintain.  You could use an all-camera system like London, but that has some privacy implications.  Slightly better would be to use an RF transponder in your vehicle in combination with a payment card that is read by sensors as you drive past them.  Sell the cards and refills at kiosks [that accept cash] located at gas stations and rest stops.  If you don't care about the government knowing who you are, register a CC or some other type of EFT to your transponder card and get billed weekly.  If your card is empty, then the system falls back to photo billing.

Such a system would take a lot of pressure off of the gas tax, which might make people care a lot less about hybrids and AFVs.
 
2013-02-01 05:16:24 PM
Taxing people for not using a resource... I don't like it.
 
2013-02-01 05:17:15 PM
I thought they wanted me to drive a hybrid, burn less fuel, emit less pollution, and save the planet.

That is my contribution. Your turn guvnor.
 
2013-02-01 05:17:38 PM
A fee? Oh fine, because that's in no way a tax, right? A fee is just taking a citizen's money and giving it to the government because he bought a particular car, right? Nope, no taxes here, you must be thinking of someone else, Republicans never tax anyone, don't be ridiculous, hey, look at this ultrasound of your bowels, ain't that neat?
 
2013-02-01 05:18:03 PM
HAHAHA  Way to stick it to those stupid libs!!1!  HAHAHAHA!!
 
2013-02-01 05:31:03 PM
I see the Party of Personal FreedomsTM continues its fine work.
 
2013-02-01 05:36:07 PM
"Hybrid and electric car owners circled the capital  "

There's that many of them in VA?
 
2013-02-01 06:02:41 PM
Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).

Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an ever-increasing number of vehicles that use less and less gas, and more and more energy derived from other sources.  Grid-connected smart meters could be configured to detect charging, and add a vehicle surcharge for just that portion of the kilowatts consumed.  Of course, if the source is solar and off the grid, well, that's another can of worms.

Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.

Take a bike, or walk, if you don't want anyone knowing where you are going.  And make sure you leave your cellphone behind, too.
 
2013-02-01 06:09:24 PM

2wolves: Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.

A 100% snark and satire free comment?

I feel the vapors coming on...


NOVA and DC roads will frustrate the snark out of even the heartiest of fellows.
 
2013-02-01 06:14:53 PM
No matter what you do, no matter how good your intent, or reasons for doing what you do, the government will ALWAYS find a loophole or make a new law to fark you out of your money. This surprises you how?
 
2013-02-01 06:15:11 PM

markie_farkie: Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).

Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an ever-increasing number of vehicles that use less and less gas, and more and more energy derived from other sources.  Grid-connected smart meters could be configured to detect charging, and add a vehicle surcharge for just that portion of the kilowatts consumed.  Of course, if the source is solar and off the grid, well, that's another can of worms.

Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.

Take a bike, or walk, if you don't want anyone knowing where you are going.  And make sure you leave your cellphone behind, too.


Or you know, tax people who can afford it the most. That's much simpler.
 
2013-02-01 06:15:19 PM
If you to tax drivers to pay for the roads, remove the fuel tax and put mileage taxation into play, and make vehicle licensing dependent on the mileage tax being paid up and current.
 
2013-02-01 06:15:40 PM

2wolves: I feel the vapors coming on...


Are you turning Japanese?

/right now?
//ew...
 
2013-02-01 06:16:59 PM
Just like the credit card companies trying to charge you for NOT using their cards, or the banks coming up with some bullshiat new way to fark you. No giant leap here.
 
2013-02-01 06:18:03 PM

Supes: Honestly, the gas tax is probably the most fair to everyone. I could definitely rationalize a small surcharge on hybrids (say $25 a year). Getting rid of the gas tax and putting the main burden on hybrid owners is just ridiculous though. It makes no sense to charge hybrid owners the $100/year fee, and normal car owners no extra fee, when the wear-and-tear on the road is the same.


Hybrids cost more to begin with than a comparable regular combustion model though, so the state is making more money off of the hybrid owner's initial car purchase via the sales tax.
 
2013-02-01 06:19:47 PM
So, is he also going to tax non-smokers because they aren't paying their share of the cigarette tax?
 
2013-02-01 06:20:36 PM
Tracking mileage on everyone would be ridiculous, but how about just taxing mileage on hybrid vehicles? Have them get their mileage read every registration and pay a tax per mile that is comparable to what they would have spent on gas tax. That would be fair.
 
2013-02-01 06:20:55 PM

markie_farkie: Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).



We could stop subsidizing oil production and apply that money to the transportation infrastructure, for starters.
 
2013-02-01 06:21:13 PM

Dixon Cider: Just charge them the smell their own farts.
(This will work as long as the South Park model is adhered too!)


This is about the level of literacy and original thought that I expect out of someone who's replaced their brain with South Park episodes.
 
2013-02-01 06:22:01 PM
Around here they get free public charging, free parking, no tolls, free ferries.... See how long that lasts if there are thousands of them.
 
2013-02-01 06:22:41 PM

phrawgh: 2wolves: I feel the vapors coming on...

Are you turning Japanese?

/right now?
//ew...


He doesn't get the picture.
 
2013-02-01 06:23:23 PM
It tastes pretty farking sweet.

/doesn't own a vehicle
 
2013-02-01 06:23:37 PM
Eliminating the gas tax is a bad idea; it transfers all the funding requirements strictly to Virginia residents and giving nothing but benefits to out of state drivers and truck lines.  Which may be the intention...
 
2013-02-01 06:24:39 PM

Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.


I say they should let people with more than 1 person in the car and commercial trucks(mass transit for goods) have the normal speedlimits they have now like 65-85 depending on state but make cars with just 1 person obey a 55mph limit
 
2013-02-01 06:26:46 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: No matter what you do, no matter how good your intent, or reasons for doing what you do, the government will ALWAYS find a loophole or make a new law to fark you out of your money. This surprises you how?


But it's not the government screwing everyone on this.  It's one particular group of people.  And (ostensibly) it's to make up for revenue they're going to lose by removing an *already existing gas tax*.  Even though there's no way that fee is going to come close to replacing that revenue, so *really* what this is is political grandstanding.

Basically, this is the governor saying "Take that, stupid liberal hippies!"  And then making sure that the guy driving a Canyonero that gets 3 mpg doesn't have to pay an extra nickel per gallon.  This is a sop to the sort of people who think that anything that makes liberals mad is good policy, because apparently those are the kinds of yahoos who elected him the first time.
 
2013-02-01 06:27:56 PM

Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats cars drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.


i.imgur.com


HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the number of cars on the road. Driving a hybrid doesn't help with traffic.
 
2013-02-01 06:28:26 PM
Yeah, that's stupid. Increase the gas tax. Those who burn more gas should pay more.

I'm looking at you, oversized SUV and pickup truck owners. You're bad for the human race and you hate your country. IMHO.
 
2013-02-01 06:29:20 PM
A road usage tax is stupid, the heavier a vehicle is the more wear and tear they do to the road thus making SUVs, trucks, semis and other large vehicles the ones to impose the taxes on. Hybrids don't touch 10 ton vehicles by any stretch of the imagination.
 
2013-02-01 06:29:30 PM

Dinjiin: Supes: Probably be way too expensive to administer

Non-arterial roads (read: side streets) should be paid for by property taxes against the properties facing on those roads.  Even if you don't drive [much], they are essential for goods and services to your home.

For arterial roads and expressways, let a per-mile tax kick in when the roadway is excessively expensive to build or maintain.  You could use an all-camera system like London, but that has some privacy implications.  Slightly better would be to use an RF transponder in your vehicle in combination with a payment card that is read by sensors as you drive past them.  Sell the cards and refills at kiosks [that accept cash] located at gas stations and rest stops.  If you don't care about the government knowing who you are, register a CC or some other type of EFT to your transponder card and get billed weekly.  If your card is empty, then the system falls back to photo billing.

Such a system would take a lot of pressure off of the gas tax, which might make people care a lot less about hybrids and AFVs.


Sounds a lot like good old fashioned toll roads.
 
2013-02-01 06:30:03 PM
You can always count on the government finding some way to squeeze more money out of us!
 
2013-02-01 06:30:34 PM
Article doesn't say whether he's a republihero or a democrap.

I'm assuming the former. I mean stupid taxes are okay when they're evil right?

I think there should be a tax on guys who abstain from legitimately raping those birth control sluts too.

SUCK IT LIBS!
 
2013-02-01 06:31:23 PM

BarkingUnicorn: "Hybrid and electric car owners circled the capital  "

There's that many of them in VA?


This is Governor Ultrasound we're talking about. If there was one in the entire state, he'd find a way to get more money out of it.


/Virginia resident since 1960
//worried about the direction we're headed
 
2013-02-01 06:31:28 PM

Supes: The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.


If the goal is to charge fairly for wear on the roads, the tax should be proportional to the fourth power of weight-per-axle, and directly proportional to the number of axles and the miles driven.   No chance of that happening, but at least a tax on gas has the property of being proportional to the amount of driving and in practice charging heavier vehicles more per mile.  

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.

Are there even enough hybrids in the state to pay for the roads?  If you keep jacking up the hybrid tax to get all of the missing gas tax revenue from fewer and fewer hybrids, soon there will be no hybrids in the state at all.
 
2013-02-01 06:31:28 PM
Hybrids are typically very light cars, they put far less wear and tear on the road than your 3 ton hummer.
 
2013-02-01 06:32:46 PM
I guess the days of trying to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles are over.

100 Watt Walrus: Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats cars drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.

[i.imgur.com image 640x640]

HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the number of cars on the road. Driving a hybrid doesn't help with traffic.


It was part of the plan to create incentives to purchase hybrid cars.

I guess we don't need to incentivize those purchases anymore.

San Francisco has already taken the HOV-lane privelege away from hybrids. You have to have a full-on electric car now.
 
2013-02-01 06:32:48 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: No matter what you do, no matter how good your intent, or reasons for doing what you do, the government will ALWAYS find a loophole or make a new law to fark you out of your money. This surprises you how?


This isn't the same.  They are eliminating the tax on everyone, but then adding a new fee just for hybrids and electrics.  Blaming the "government" would be an outright over-simplification of the situation.  Blame this specific asshat governor instead.
 
2013-02-01 06:33:17 PM
So the party of low taxes wants to tax people for a product they don't use?
 
2013-02-01 06:34:20 PM
Road usage fees (vehicle reg., gas tax) only pay for about half of what roads cost.

This idea is beyond stupid.
 
2013-02-01 06:36:59 PM

nacker: They are eliminating the tax on everyone


I thought that was what it was trying to say but it just seemed so f*cking stoopid even the crappiest oil lobby sucking POS politician wouldn't go that far.

Is that really what is happening? No taxes for those who actually USE the gas but tax the hybrid owners because they use LESS of it?

If so... criminal charges please. The man is a traitor to the country and humanity.
 
2013-02-01 06:37:40 PM

Jument: Yeah, that's stupid. Increase the gas tax. Those who burn more gas should pay more.


Because burning more gas is worse for the condition of the roads through usage how?
 
2013-02-01 06:39:43 PM

here to help: nacker: They are eliminating the tax on everyone

I thought that was what it was trying to say but it just seemed so f*cking stoopid even the crappiest oil lobby sucking POS politician wouldn't go that far.

Is that really what is happening? No taxes for those who actually USE the gas but tax the hybrid owners because they use LESS of it?

If so... criminal charges please. The man is a traitor to the country and humanity.


They are eliminating the STATE gas tax.  Obviously the federal one would still be in place, and I'm sure the state gets plenty of money to maintain freeways, etc from that.
 
2013-02-01 06:41:02 PM
So it wasn't really about saving the environment, it was saving $$$ on gas?
 
2013-02-01 06:41:31 PM

sheRaids: You can always count on the government finding some way to squeeze more money out of us!


BRILLIANT INSIGHT! So glad you're here.
 
2013-02-01 06:41:45 PM
It still tastes like victory.

/I got my wife out of a Cadilac DeVille (a high-test burner.)
/with extra awsome sauce
 
2013-02-01 06:42:22 PM
$100? Pffft, too low. Needs to be $1,000.
 
2013-02-01 06:43:23 PM

pciszek: Supes: The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

If the goal is to charge fairly for wear on the roads, the tax should be proportional to the fourth power of weight-per-axle, and directly proportional to the number of axles and the miles driven.   No chance of that happening, but at least a tax on gas has the property of being proportional to the amount of driving and in practice charging heavier vehicles more per mile.  

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.

Are there even enough hybrids in the state to pay for the roads?  If you keep jacking up the hybrid tax to get all of the missing gas tax revenue from fewer and fewer hybrids, soon there will be no hybrids in the state at all.


That's the problem in a nutshell.  What we really want is a Road-Wear Tax.  What we used to use was a gas tax, since gas consumption was a rough proxy for how much you drove.  It's not anymore, so we absolutely need a weight- and mileage-dependent tax for road maintenance.  Nothing else really makes sense.
 
2013-02-01 06:43:34 PM
Won't this just add to the Smug?  "I'm so eco-friendly, they have to charge me extra to make up for all the gas I'm not using"
 
2013-02-01 06:43:51 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Solid State Vittles: What about bicycles?

TAX THE FARK OUT OF BICYCLES!!!


THIS ^^^^

AND TRIPLE TAX DEER, RACCOON AND SKUNK ROADKILL.
 
2013-02-01 06:45:42 PM

lostcat: 100 Watt Walrus: HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the number of cars on the road. Driving a hybrid doesn't help with traffic.

It was part of the plan to create incentives to purchase hybrid cars.

I guess we don't need to incentivize those purchases anymore.

San Francisco has already taken the HOV-lane privelege away from hybrids. You have to have a full-on electric car now.


Oh, I know, and it was wrong from the get-go. I'm all for encouraging people to have a smaller environmental footprint, but "drive this car by yourself and we'll let you use the lanes designed to encourage people to  not drive by themselves" is and was stupid.
 
2013-02-01 06:46:57 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Taxing people for not using a resource... I don't like it.


The resource is the road, not the gasoline (although hybrid drivers do use gasoline, just not as much of it as non-hybrid drivers).
 
2013-02-01 06:48:38 PM
Gas tax is based on vehicle size.  The bigger the car, the more gas you use, so the more tax you pay, to cover the damage you cause to the roads. Lighter cars take less gas, cause less wear, and pay less tax.  Hybrids aren't magical, they are just gas efficient.  Why not tax the Honda Fit or Toyota Echo which get well into the 30 mpg range for not using gas like an SUV?  How about mopeds?  Tax them!

We tax electricity, vehicle registration, and gas.  We don't need more taxes.  All the times in play are already taxed.
 
2013-02-01 06:50:49 PM

nacker: They are eliminating the STATE gas tax. Obviously the federal one would still be in place, and I'm sure the state gets plenty of money to maintain freeways, etc from that.


But he still wants the people using LESS or NO gas to pay. Nope... guy is a f*cking POS... especially after reading his Wiki page.

Link

Anti abortion, sell off state assets, drill baby drill, confederate flag waving P... O... S.

Only good thing I saw on there from a quick scan was that he was for closing the gun show loophole but he still gets an A from the NRA so I can only assume he's doing some other kind of dirty work for them.
 
2013-02-01 06:52:37 PM

happyhackered: Gas tax is based on vehicle size.  The bigger the car, the more gas you use, so the more tax you pay, to cover the damage you cause to the roads. Lighter cars take less gas, cause less wear, and pay less tax.  Hybrids aren't magical, they are just gas efficient.  Why not tax the Honda Fit or Toyota Echo which get well into the 30 mpg range for not using gas like an SUV?  How about mopeds?  Tax them!

We tax electricity, vehicle registration, and gas.  We don't need more taxes.  All the times in play are already taxed.



Or, what if we tax gas at a flat rate, and the more you need to run your giant tank the more you pay.  Lighter vehicle means less gas needed to run.

/drives a truck
 
2013-02-01 06:52:57 PM
Virginia's been trying to fix its transportation problems by cutting taxes for the last 20 years. Hasn't worked yet. It seems like it's everyone's number 1 issue here, but no one wants to pay for it.

I can't admit to following Virginia politics too closely but when Gilmore was running for governor it seemed that eliminating the car tax was his entire agenda.

Also, there are non-hybrids that use WAY less gas than some hybrids. Lexus makes one that gets 19 MPG! Not that I mind a gas guzzler paying a bit more, but there are non-hybrids that get 40+ MPG, so the logic of the law doesn't even make sesne.
 
2013-02-01 06:52:59 PM
As a Virginia Prius driver...I'm not really sure if I'm getting a kick out of this. Last year I bought 217 gallons of gas. So this would basically be a $0.46/gal tax on me. Is that more or less than current taxes? My guess is more, but overall it doesn't seem worth complaining about.
 
2013-02-01 06:53:06 PM
Hybrid car owners do buy gas for their cars.  They are not 100% electrical.
 
2013-02-01 06:53:33 PM

APE992: A road usage tax is stupid, the heavier a vehicle is the more wear and tear they do to the road thus making SUVs, trucks, semis and other large vehicles the ones to impose the taxes on. Hybrids don't touch 10 ton vehicles by any stretch of the imagination.


Came here to say this exactly. Road tax should be proportional to vehicle weight. Tractor trailers are by far the biggest offenders. I'd think a weight-dependent road tax could be assessed each year. Create different classes in 500 or 1,000 lbs brackets. Then hit the heavy-weight commercial vehicles (a large proportion of which are registered in different states) for mileage and weight in-state when they hit the weigh stations.
 
2013-02-01 06:53:56 PM
We had a drought years ago in Virginia and the government aggressively enforced water restrictions, then raise water bill rates because they weren't generating enough revenue on the lower volume. Shockingly, the rates did not go down when the drought was over.

The government knows all too well why we hate it. It just does not care.
 
2013-02-01 06:55:52 PM

edmo: I thought they wanted me to drive a hybrid, burn less fuel, emit less pollution, and save the planet.

That is my contribution. Your turn guvnor.


"They" do. They also want you pay to maintain the infrastructure that you use just as much as you did before.

However, if it can't be done fairly, it shouldn't be done at all. The proposed solution is asinine.
 
2013-02-01 06:56:22 PM
This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!
 
2013-02-01 06:59:49 PM
Heavy vehicles damage our roads and we need money to fix them.  I know, let's get rid of the fuel tax, cut other taxes and then tax fuel efficient vehicles and things poor people buy. Why has no one thought of this before?
 
2013-02-01 07:00:04 PM
This is an anti-tax Republican, right? Proposing a new tax? Okay, then.
 
2013-02-01 07:00:13 PM

JeffreyScott: The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


Less gas used... less money needed to be spent killing brown people for their oil and cleaning up toxic slicks.

You guys can pay for your own evil hobbies.

You also conveniently left out the part where where the gas guzzlers wouldn't pay the state gas tax at all.
 
2013-02-01 07:00:42 PM

Moonfisher: Tracking mileage on everyone would be ridiculous, but how about just taxing mileage on hybrid vehicles? Have them get their mileage read every registration and pay a tax per mile that is comparable to what they would have spent on gas tax. That would be fair.


BS, non hybrid vehicles should have to pay the same tax too.
 
2013-02-01 07:00:49 PM

JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!



But that is exactly what isn't happening with this.  Don't point fingers about people being hypocrites without at least reading the article.

/I know, people who read tend to be liberal.
//Am I doing it right?
 
2013-02-01 07:03:19 PM
This fee, combined with eliminating PBS, will finally put the long nightmare of our national debt behind us!

Oh, and a tax on arugula as well.....
 
2013-02-01 07:05:33 PM

Supes: It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid driver...


So based on a gas price of $3.30 per gallon, there's currently about a 5% gas tax.  Seems it's never been indexed for inflation as that would be too sensible.

So this great plan is to get rid of 5% tax on gas entirely and replace it with a 1% sales tax increase on E V E R Y T H I N G else.

Virginia voters are complete suckers if they fall for this.  The governor is raising your taxes.  He's just doing it in a sneaky way that he hopes the average voter won't realize is a big tax increase.

/And all those out-of-staters just driving through your state?  With no gas tax, they'll use your roads for free.  Brilliant!
 
2013-02-01 07:14:29 PM

RandomRandom: Supes: It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid driver...

So based on a gas price of $3.30 per gallon, there's currently about a 5% gas tax.  Seems it's never been indexed for inflation as that would be too sensible.

So this great plan is to get rid of 5% tax on gas entirely and replace it with a 1% sales tax increase on E V E R Y T H I N G else.

Virginia voters are complete suckers if they fall for this.  The governor is raising your taxes.  He's just doing it in a sneaky way that he hopes the average voter won't realize is a big tax increase.

/And all those out-of-staters just driving through your state?  With no gas tax, they'll use your roads for free.  Brilliant!


The sales tax increase for infrastructure purposes actually does make a little sense. This helps pay for the VA portion of the DC Metro as well. Plenty of folks in NoVa commute using the Metro every day, but pay very little in taxes to support it. Though granted a tax on the Metro passes would be more targeted and make more sense.

JeffreyScott: The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


I hope you're just trolling, or point missed completely. In the gas tax as it exists, hybrid owners don't pay their fair share. In the taxes proposed, non-hybrid owners don't pay their fair share. That's why so many people here are proposing a weight/mileage tax, so everyone does pay the right amount.
 
2013-02-01 07:14:49 PM

APE992: A road usage tax is stupid, the heavier a vehicle is the more wear and tear they do to the road thus making SUVs, trucks, semis and other large vehicles the ones to impose the taxes on. Hybrids don't touch 10 ton vehicles by any stretch of the imagination.


they do pay more, they all get shiatty mileage and pay a lot more.
and a 3,781 lb chevy volt is nothing to sneeze at.
pay up for what you use you whiny farks.
 
2013-02-01 07:16:44 PM

Ima_Lurker: Sounds a lot like good old fashioned toll roads.


Oh snap, you're on to me.
 
2013-02-01 07:17:04 PM

Cagey B: Dixon Cider: Just charge them the smell their own farts.
(This will work as long as the South Park model is adhered too!)

This is about the level of literacy and original thought that I expect out of someone who's replaced their brain with South Park episodes.


Do you feel like a grown up now?
Good for you!!!


You keep on being better then everyone else, Sparkle Pants!
 
2013-02-01 07:17:23 PM

JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


It's actually possible that hybrid owners might be convinced to pay a fee to make up for lost revenue, but it's idiotic to expect them to do that while at the same time removing the existing gas tax.  In this case, hybrid owners aren't being asked to pay their fair share, they're being asked to be the only ones who pay any tax at all.  That's a fair share?

Anyway, what this really is is a "fark you, liberals" sop to the governor's base.
 
2013-02-01 07:19:15 PM
Several of you and the legislature in question aren't very good at thinking.
For one, what's magical about use of the roads that we have to maintain ultimate fairness in taxing the use of them? If a hybrid uses 30% less gas than an SUV and they pay the same tax, given that hybrids constitute, what, 1%, wouldn't just administering this tax cost the same as trying to right this inequality?
Also, there's nothing magical about the term 'hybrid.' Jeep makes a hybrid. The Lexus hybrid cars get less mileage than a corolla. What, are we going to have some kind of formula taking into account the miles per gallon and the weight of the car?

If you don't have to pay to use the DMV or schools more than someone else, why is anybody spending energy to get the road tax equal to the nickel?

/$100 bucks? really?
 
2013-02-01 07:22:02 PM

JeffreyScott: The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


Really?  You really think hybrid drivers are the reason your roads aren't adequate?  You really think it's unfair that they're not paying their fair share?

The amount you're subsidizing hybrid cars is absolutely tiny compared of the amount you're subsidizing heavy trucks. Yeah, trucks buy a lot of gas and pay a lot of gas tax, they also do 10 to 100 times as much damage to roadways as cars.  You read that right, 10 to 100 times.  They don't even begin to make up for that in the gas tax they pay.

Did you know that Virginia (just looked it up) has raised the truck weight limit pretty regularly for the past many decades.  More weight = more damage.  Heavier trucks pay more?  Noooooope.

/Typical conservative.  Gets pissed off every time he sees a liberal in their "freeloading hybrid".   Doesn't realize the actual problem with his state's road budget is being caused by freeloading private enterprise.
 
2013-02-01 07:23:07 PM
http://www.askmen.com/top_10/cars_200/217_car_list.html

My G35 gets better mileage with a K&N than the bottom two. Once again it's politicians who aren't smart, because they represent the masses, and I more and more often think the middle part of that bell curve is REALLY high.
 
2013-02-01 07:29:47 PM

mjbok: Jument: Yeah, that's stupid. Increase the gas tax. Those who burn more gas should pay more.

Because burning more gas is worse for the condition of the roads through usage how?


Less fuel efficient vehicles weigh more than hybrid cars. Seriously, are you on glue?
 
2013-02-01 07:36:11 PM
Take the NFL, ACC and NHL to start
 
2013-02-01 07:36:21 PM
They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.
 
2013-02-01 07:36:57 PM

Waldo Pepper: Take the NFL, ACC and NHL to start


oops meant Tax
 
2013-02-01 07:38:23 PM

Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.


Name one time a bicycle caused a road to need to be repaired. It's a heavy trucks that are causing all the damage.
 
2013-02-01 07:38:41 PM

Supes: The sales tax increase for infrastructure purposes actually does make a little sense. This helps pay for the VA portion of the DC Metro as well. Plenty of folks in NoVa commute using the Metro every day, but pay very little in taxes to support it. Though granted a tax on the Metro passes would be more targeted and make more sense.


It's all NoVa, and NoVa doesn't want to pay.  Northern Virginian voters recently voted down a proposal to raise taxes in NoVa to pay for NoVa roads.  The roads in the rest of the state are reasonably adequate.  It's only in NoVa that the roads are a complete farkwad gridlock ever afternoon.

This proposal is a hugely regressive tax that builds Northern Virginia's roads on the backs of the working people in the rest of the state. It's a tax on everything and everybody in the state, just to pay for roads in one small corner.  He could maybe have gotten away with a services tax.  I read there there is currently no  services tax in the state.  Services taxes hit upper income brackets far more than lower.  He didn't do that, he put forward a sales tax increase, on every farking thing.

Then there's the fact that he's a Republican and this is a Net Tax Increase!  I figured McDonnell had presidential aspirations.  He's either written that off or he's just stupid.  Or maybe he thinks the voters are stupid enough to fall for this bait and switch.  He might push this through, but when it gets to presidential politics, this is going to be seen for the tax increase it is.  It's probably enough to get him nullified in the Republican primaries.

The attack ad writes itself.  "Because of McDonnell, out of state travelers now use Virginia's roads for free.  When he was Governor, McDonnell increased the sales tax, ON EVERYTHING, increasing the average tax rate of Virginian's by $x".

/The governor's political advisers are first rate morons.
 
2013-02-01 07:40:16 PM
It seems wrong to have a consumption-based fee for non-hybrid drivers, but a fixed surcharge for hybrid drivers...it's disproportionately unfair to hybrid drivers who drive very little. Also:

shiatty hybrids get shiatty mileage. Early Chevy's Silverado hybrids clocked in at 16 mpg.

Efficient non-hybrids get good mileage. A $15k Hyunda Elantra gets 33 mpg (combined city/highway), beating nearly all hybrids. (Not counting plug-in electric hybrids.)
 
2013-02-01 07:41:34 PM

Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.


No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.
 
2013-02-01 07:43:10 PM

APE992: A road usage tax is stupid, the heavier a vehicle is the more wear and tear they do to the road thus making SUVs, trucks, semis and other large vehicles the ones to impose the taxes on. Hybrids don't

touch 10 ton vehicles by any stretch of the imagination.


They are substantially heavier than traditional vehicles of the same mpg though.  They tend to be deluxe models(heavier) with extensive battery packs(more weight).

Personally, I'd just kick the gas tax up a cent or so in order to incentive people driving efficient vehicles a touch more, and eat the extra as a bit of a subsidy for saving the earth.  At least until a substantial fraction are avoiding gas taxes entirely, via plug-in hybrids and EVs, propane and natural gas, etc...

happyhackered: Why not tax the Honda Fit or Toyota Echo which get well into the 30 mpg range for not using gas like an SUV? How about mopeds? Tax them!


Damage to roadways basically goes up by the square of the weight of the vehicle.  IE even if you had fleets and fleets of mopeds constantly going over the road, you'll see less damage than a single fully loaded semi trailer every hour.  Weather wear would be faster.

The Fit/Echo are actually lighter vehicles; so less damage.  Hybrids tend to be heavier than vehicles of their size range, before you figure that the components reduce gas consumption below average for that size.
 
2013-02-01 07:44:16 PM

LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.


Bikes require additional traffic control measures, like bike lanes, signs about bikes being present, etc.  There is a cost.  Try again.
 
2013-02-01 07:46:00 PM

T Baggins: It seems wrong to have a consumption-based fee for non-hybrid drivers, but a fixed surcharge for hybrid drivers...it's disproportionately unfair to hybrid drivers who drive very little.


Except they're also getting rid of the consumption-based fee for non-hybrid drivers, making it doubly wrong.
 
2013-02-01 07:46:17 PM
Osomatic:

Anyway, what this really is is a "fark you, liberals" sop to the governor's base.

.  ^--- this
 
2013-02-01 07:47:24 PM

T Baggins: shiatty hybrids get shiatty mileage. Early Chevy's Silverado hybrids clocked in at 16 mpg.


To be fair, looking at the specifications for said hybrid, it was for a truck that still had 90% of the towing capacity, and was aimed more at contractors to use it as a portable generator.

I'd love to see a Tacoma hybrid - put the battery pack under the bed, around the rear axle.  Preferably stick the motor there too.  Mate it with the 4 cylinder, but set up the springs and such so it has the load/towing capacity of the 6 cylinder models.  The electric motor is used when towing to provide that 100% torque at 0 rpm that's great for getting heavy loads started.  Then you cruise down the highway with the smaller engine still in it's ideal power band for fuel efficiency.  Heck, a smallish 4 cylinder turbodiesel would be great.
 
2013-02-01 07:50:01 PM
This is a tough one. I can't decide which is better ...

Asia Carerra, or Charlize Theron
 
2013-02-01 07:50:09 PM

ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.

Bikes require additional traffic control measures, like bike lanes, signs about bikes being present, etc.  There is a cost.  Try again.


Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.
 
2013-02-01 07:51:40 PM
Probably better to create / add a few toll roads and jack up the yearly registration fees (including a federal component) for all cars while eliminating the gas tax entirely.

That'd be most fair, whether your car runs on gas or coal or some combination thereof.
 
2013-02-01 07:53:01 PM

grinding_journalist: phrawgh: 2wolves: I feel the vapors coming on...

Are you turning Japanese?

/right now?
//ew...

He doesn't get the picture.


I suppose he wants a doctor to take your picture so he can look at you from inside as well?
 
2013-02-01 07:55:48 PM
pciszek: If the goal is to charge fairly for wear on the roads, the tax should be proportional to the fourth power of weight-per-axle, and directly proportional to the number of axles and the miles driven.   No chance of that happening, but at least a tax on gas has the property of being proportional to the amount of driving and in practice charging heavier vehicles more per mile.

weight^4, eh? I want to consider that. That's the most practical idea I've heard so far. Kudos! I was just having this discussion with my wife about how we would deal with the weight-to-wear ratio for any mileage-based solution to taxation.

Are there even enough hybrids in the state to pay for the roads?  If you keep jacking up the hybrid tax to get all of the missing gas tax revenue from fewer and fewer hybrids, soon there will be no hybrids in the state at all.

In Fairfax County? Probably. In the rest of the state? Not so much. It's too hard to haul things in a hybrid, and the early ones have the worst acceleration so they're no fun to race. Thus it's another metro-DC-vs-God's-fave-commonwealth approach.
 
2013-02-01 07:56:00 PM

hugram: Hybrid car owners do buy gas for their cars.  They are not 100% electrical.


Funny thing is Hybrid doesn't mean it has a electrical motor at all.  My 2000 Ranger is considered Hybrid for it can burn E-85.  The article didn't clarify if the fee would include or exclude flex fuel hybrids.  Also, I am sure the buses now running on a fuel alternative puts way more abuse on the roads than any full size suv.  Quite frankly, the argument about the abuse caused by a pick-up verses car on the roadways compare nothing to big shipping trucks, which already pay huge fees.  What also gets me is a 2013 F-150 gets the same mileage as an old Ranger.  Most vehicles are burning less gas these days.  Excuses to charge more fees is just old business.

I am for treating bicyclist like motorist.  Many don't realize road rules apply to bikes, so make them get licenses and register the bikes inorder to ride on the road.  Otherwise stay to parks and bike paths.  I say that should also apply to kids, only the age for a bicycle license could be much lower.  Maybe make the minimum age for bikes 10, old enough to read and understand the rules and be able to travel well on a bike.
 
2013-02-01 07:58:27 PM

2wolves: Pocket Ninja: Just stop letting these asshats drive in the HOV lane. That's all I ask.

A 100% snark and satire free comment?

I feel the vapors coming on...


I'm sure it's in there.
 
2013-02-01 08:00:15 PM

LavenderWolf: Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.


I'm sorry, can you point out where I said the state bears the cost of those improvements? You said there was no cost in road maintenance for bikes, I disagreed.  Where did I talk about state or federal funding or anything of that nature?  Keep trying.
 
2013-02-01 08:00:28 PM

markie_farkie: Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.


Similar systems -- albeit I don't know of any yet that are GPS-based -- exist elsewhere already. I believe Hong Kong was one of the first to look at electronic road pricing (pops), but a public uproar over privacy just like that you predicted squashed the scheme. Singapore, which is rather more authoritarian, had no such issues.
 
2013-02-01 08:04:54 PM
Sounds like it would be time for another Boston Tea Party, and not the old baby boomer type of tea party...  Just in a different state.  Destroy a bunch of gas guzzlers and gas stations...

First, I have no problem paying a fee, I pay $53/year to register my car right now in Ohio.  But, I do have a problem with him eliminating the gas tax, and then charging a huge amount to the hybrid and EV owners.  If he doubled or tripled the gas tax, like what should have happened, we would be in a much better place in this country.  But now we pay high taxes and go into debt to secure oil, we have oil spills all over the place, we export lots of money to OPEC and other crappy people, right-wing lobbyists get lots of money from oil, and there is lots of pollution and greenhouse gases that get emitted by cars and trucks.  I would have to buy enough gas to go ~23,000 miles in my 40mpg car at 0.175 cents per gallon in order to equal $100.  I bet most EVs do well under 10,000 miles a year, and get taxed for the electricity they use too (unless they make their own like me).

Anyways, I bet you would see a bunch of license plates from other states showing up on EVs in Virgina...

So when is this guy going to get voted out?
 
2013-02-01 08:05:09 PM
This reminds me of the push to get everyone to spend lots of money to make their homes more energy efficient. Homeowners spend the money, maybe get some kind of tax credit from the feds -- if they qualify for it, and then the utility companies get rate increases to offset the revenue they've "lost" because of the increased efficiency, and the homeowners wind up with utility bills that are the same or higher than they were before.

As for the tax-the-hybrid thing... Did anyone not see this coming? Seriously?
 
2013-02-01 08:06:42 PM
Oh, is this the thread where all the numbnut rednecks who prefer the braking technology of a medieval ox cart plot their sweet revenge on the science types who figured a way to capture and reuse that energy instead of wearing out brake parts?  Why not just soap their windows and teepee their yards?
 
2013-02-01 08:10:29 PM
all for fair taxes until they get asked to pay their share.
scum of the earth.
 
2013-02-01 08:11:27 PM

impaler: I know Republicans want to be wrong on everything, but this is ridiculous.


Washington State already has a $100 tax on EVs under a Democratic Governor and that bastion of conservatism Oregon is floating the idea as well but durr...

http://www.portlandpulp.com/stories/Oregon-lawmakers-propose-to-tax- el ectric-and-hybrid-cars-per-mile-185579392.html

Oregon in fact has been trying to figure out how to do it since 2011 with a mileage tax to compensate for the lack of gas tax being paid.  Personally I think it is BS to penalize someone for trying to be fuel efficient.  I think the the lack of having to pay for gas and gas taxes is a great incentive to switch.  However suggesting this is some kind of new fangled idea the Republicans came up with is just derp.
 
2013-02-01 08:11:54 PM
FTFA: Beth Kemler attended the protest to voice her opposition.

"We should be rewarding people for trying to do their part to stop the climate crisis and to lower pollution," she says. "We shouldn't be punishing them with taxes."

Another protestor, Laurel Snowd, says she bought her vehicle to protect the environment.

"I really feel like we should be supporting people who want to do that and not penalizing them, and trying to get more people to buy hybrid cars," she says.



"Young fools... Only now -- at the end -- do you finally understand!"
 
2013-02-01 08:12:43 PM

gweilo8888: markie_farkie: Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.


The only tamper-free way to track mileage is through the existing odometer. You can hack an add-on GPS tool but it's illegal to mess with an odometer.

It'll probably get tied to annual inspections. It's also easier that way: we don't care where you went and it probably involved beer and sexual congress, but we need to run the math on how much you're beating up the highways of God's Favorite Country so we'll still have the roads in a couple generations.

The residual problem is interstate commuters. If a resident of State X gets charged per mile but lives on the border of State Y and commutes to State Y, then Y is getting the wear while X gets the money. If I drive across the country, how many states get a cut? I haven't figured out an answer for that.
 
2013-02-01 08:14:30 PM

LavenderWolf: mjbok: Jument: Yeah, that's stupid. Increase the gas tax. Those who burn more gas should pay more.

Because burning more gas is worse for the condition of the roads through usage how?

Less fuel efficient vehicles weigh more than hybrid cars. Seriously, are you on glue?


A Chevy S10 weighs about the same as a Prius (some googled stats placed it below, some slightly above).  Gets about 1/3 the gas mileage.  Do it by weight, not by gas usage.
 
2013-02-01 08:15:43 PM

whatsupchuck: Oh, is this the thread where all the numbnut rednecks who prefer the braking technology of a medieval ox cart plot their sweet revenge on the science types who figured a way to capture and reuse that energy instead of wearing out brake parts?  Why not just soap their windows and teepee their yards?


No.  It's where we mock you for being a dick.
 
2013-02-01 08:16:07 PM
Add a special charge for high end alcohol.  20% per .75 liters over $100.
 
2013-02-01 08:16:59 PM
FTFA: Beth Kemler attended the protest to voice her opposition.

"We should be rewarding people for trying to do their part to stop the climate crisis and to lower pollution," she says. "We shouldn't be punishing them with taxes."

Another protestor, Laurel Snowd, says she bought her vehicle to protect the environment.

"I really feel like we should be supporting people who want to do that and not penalizing them, and trying to get more people to buy hybrid cars," she says.



Okay, ladies. Just get your cute little asses back into your kitchens and let Governor Ultrasound and his boys run the show. Your female naivete about how things really work is making you two look silly. Now, go get the governor a beer and STFU.
 
2013-02-01 08:18:12 PM
The issue with taxing hybrids is that on many of them the MSRP price tag is a bitter pill to swallow.  In fact the only way to get that pill down is the $7,500 federal tax rebate.  When you start eating into that rebate via state fees, you're not helping.  Hybrids likely should be taxed at some point to offset the fact they're not paying into the road upkeep fund, however it is premature.  Also it is just a band-aid, the real issue is as we make everything more fuel efficient,  we'll see more wear and tear put on the road per gallon of gas purchased.  The whole model needs to be reworked.

You could of course raise gas taxes, but that isn't the greatest idea.  One of the big issues with American society is different social classes live in different areas, since you can drive to the place you work.  So you have people driving from low property value areas to high property value areas.  If you raise gas taxes you do disproportional harm to landscapers, plumbers, maids, and a lot of other careers that aren't exactly raking in the money.

As a solution for the moment, I've always felt that luxury taxing premium gas was a valid step.  I say this as someone who occasionally commutes to work in a CTS-V or Corvette.  If I decide to go tool around in that kind of vehicle, tax me for it.  All I ask is that 1) At least half of this tax increase goes to funding other transportation measures (high speed rail, commuter rail, better bus systems, etc) and 2) it has a sunset clause in it (with renewal option of course).  Let the state pull enough revenue to fix some roads and help a few cities buy hybrid buses.

/we could tax tires I suppose, as they truly measure the wear and tear potential
//a tax based on mileage rating of the tire and the weight the tire can handle
/of course then manufacturers would lie about the mileage rating to lower taxes
 
2013-02-01 08:21:00 PM

mjbok: A Chevy S10 weighs about the same as a Prius (some googled stats placed it below, some slightly above).  Gets about 1/3 the gas mileage.  Do it by weight, not by gas usage.


Only issue there is how do you tax say a super duty pickup?  Fully loaded it outweighs a lot of other things on the road and, but of course it isn't always driven around with its bed full and a trailer attached.  With the current model the fully loaded truck uses more gas and thus pays more in taxes than the one that is empty.  If you tax purely on weight you'll have to estimate how often the truck is hauling loads versus just one person.
 
2013-02-01 08:23:48 PM

impaler: I know Republicans want to be wrong on everything, but this is ridiculous.


I've moved around quite a bit over the past decade, and I've lived in several "red" states. My experience has been that the more "conservative" a state's politicians supposedly are, the higher the taxes and the harder these taxes hit the middle and lower classes. Your elected representatives in Washington keep screaming about tax cuts (mostly for the rich) and smaller government, while back at home the politicians there are looking for every way possible to tax the f*ck out of everything and everyone who isn't rich. And the worst part about it -- their most loyal constituents are the ones who can least afford all the taxes they're having to pay because of these assholes.
 
2013-02-01 08:29:06 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: As a Virginia Prius driver...I'm not really sure if I'm getting a kick out of this. Last year I bought 217 gallons of gas. So this would basically be a $0.46/gal tax on me. Is that more or less than current taxes? My guess is more, but overall it doesn't seem worth complaining about.


Hey, how many miles driven?
 
2013-02-01 08:30:17 PM

relcec: all for fair taxes until they get asked to pay their share.
scum of the earth.


Hey look who didn't rtfa?

I would be fine with it if they werent replacing the gas tax for this idiocy.
 
2013-02-01 08:32:15 PM
lol pay their fair share
 
2013-02-01 08:36:06 PM

ha-ha-guy: The issue with taxing hybrids is that on many of them the MSRP price tag is a bitter pill to swallow.  In fact the only way to get that pill down is the $7,500 federal tax rebate.  When you start eating into that rebate via state fees, you're not helping.  Hybrids likely should be taxed at some point to offset the fact they're not paying into the road upkeep fund, however it is premature.  Also it is just a band-aid, the real issue is as we make everything more fuel efficient,  we'll see more wear and tear put on the road per gallon of gas purchased.  The whole model needs to be reworked.

You could of course raise gas taxes, but that isn't the greatest idea.  One of the big issues with American society is different social classes live in different areas, since you can drive to the place you work.  So you have people driving from low property value areas to high property value areas.  If you raise gas taxes you do disproportional harm to landscapers, plumbers, maids, and a lot of other careers that aren't exactly raking in the money.

As a solution for the moment, I've always felt that luxury taxing premium gas was a valid step.  I say this as someone who occasionally commutes to work in a CTS-V or Corvette.  If I decide to go tool around in that kind of vehicle, tax me for it.  All I ask is that 1) At least half of this tax increase goes to funding other transportation measures (high speed rail, commuter rail, better bus systems, etc) and 2) it has a sunset clause in it (with renewal option of course).  Let the state pull enough revenue to fix some roads and help a few cities buy hybrid buses.

/we could tax tires I suppose, as they truly measure the wear and tear potential
//a tax based on mileage rating of the tire and the weight the tire can handle
/of course then manufacturers would lie about the mileage rating to lower taxes


Just add a tax to all luxury vehicle purchases/yearly registrations. If your car's Kelly Blue book value is over 40k, you get taxed, etc.
 
2013-02-01 08:40:32 PM

filter: Around here they get free public charging, free parking, no tolls, free ferries.... See how long that lasts if there are thousands of them.


Around here there are thousands of them; and there are no free public chargin, free parking, no tolls, or free ferries...and yet, they exist.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:02 PM

raygundan: a weight- and mileage-dependent tax for road maintenance.


And we could call it a ton-mile tax.  Why didn't someone think of that 60 years ago?
 
2013-02-01 08:43:38 PM

markie_farkie: Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).

Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an ever-increasing number of vehicles that use less and less gas, and more and more energy derived from other sources.  Grid-connected smart meters could be configured to detect charging, and add a vehicle surcharge for just that portion of the kilowatts consumed.  Of course, if the source is solar and off the grid, well, that's another can of worms.

Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.

Take a bike, or walk, if you don't want anyone knowing where you are going.  And make sure you leave your cellphone behind, too.


You mean they may be tracking my Obamaphone? Say it isn't so. That couldn't possibly have been even a small part of the motive to give them away.
 
2013-02-01 08:44:46 PM

hosalabad: Prank Call of Cthulhu: As a Virginia Prius driver...I'm not really sure if I'm getting a kick out of this. Last year I bought 217 gallons of gas. So this would basically be a $0.46/gal tax on me. Is that more or less than current taxes? My guess is more, but overall it doesn't seem worth complaining about.

Hey, how many miles driven?


About 10,950.
 
2013-02-01 08:45:46 PM

Solid State Vittles: What next, tax car ownder that decide to carpool or take mass transit?  What about bicycles?

Or how about people that quit smoking or drinking?  Those tax revenues need to be made up somehow, right?

I'd say this is beyond retarded, but I did read an NRO piece yesterday that was critical of Obama condemning the Holocaust.  The bar is set very high (or low).


lol all of a sudden libs are worried about slippery slopes.
 
2013-02-01 08:46:55 PM

Cymbal: Just add a tax to all luxury vehicle purchases/yearly registrations. If your car's Kelly Blue book value is over 40k, you get taxed, etc.


If it's over 20k, you don't get car tax relief.
 
2013-02-01 08:51:30 PM
This far into the discussion and no one has suggested the most logical solution?

Put the tax onto commercial vehicles only. After all they are the ones truly profiting from the roads. And the most road damage is done by large commercial trucks/semis. And there's already an infrastructure in place through the dot/weigh stations that could take care of it. Maybe a flat yearly rate for commercial cars as well. Taxing the non commercial citizens didn't make much sense. Pad the cost onto those who are actually making money off the roads.

// like tucking duh you idiots
 
2013-02-01 08:54:27 PM

Cymbal: Just add a tax to all luxury vehicle purchases/yearly registrations. If your car's Kelly Blue book value is over 40k, you get taxed, etc.


A lot of work trucks can easily exceed 40k when all the towing packages, lift gates, dumper beds, etc are all said and done.  So you'd need an exception to the luxury tax for those vehicles, given small businesses suffer enough as it is.  If you do that, I'll just make it so my CTS-V is owned my wife's dental practice was a work vehicle.  If you make it so only trucks can be registered there, that thwarts my evil plan but other people will register Escalades, Yukon Denalis, luxury pickups (yes they make them), etc as work vehicles.  It would be a paperwork nightmare to catch everyone abusing the system.  You could end up spending more money auditing people than you collect.

Whereas if you put an extra tax on premium tomorrow, performance car owners, motorcycle owners, and a few innocents who bought a small car with really high compression.  The last two groups have options to purchase other comparable products or wait for manufacturers to bring more options to the market that don't require premium gas. One option is to announce a planned tax increase to premium that is 3 or 4 years out.  That way if you're still holding a premium guzzling product by the time the tax increase hits, it is your own damn fault.
 
2013-02-01 08:58:12 PM
100 Watt Walrus:
HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the number of cars on the road. Driving a hybrid doesn't help with traffic.

HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the amount of pollution generated by vehicles, and reducing the number of cars is just one way to do that. Less traffic is the incentive, not the goal. The government doesn't give a damn about shaving ten minutes off your commute.
 
2013-02-01 08:59:01 PM

Klom Dark: Put the tax onto commercial vehicles only


No good, that spikes food prices since it ups delivery costs of produce, meat, etc.  Those are items the government tries to keep inexpensive so everyone can afford to eat.  If you put the entire burden on commercial vehicles, that means we see an unpleasant amount of cost passed onto the consumer in areas we don't want it.

/although I do like the idea of taxing courier style companies (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc) more.
//one really nasty tax rate for every vehicle in their fleet that fails to meet specific MPG requirements and a much less nasty tax rate for those that do
 
2013-02-01 09:00:38 PM
Hey, remember how the federal government killed diesel cars by doing exactly the same thing to them?
 
2013-02-01 09:03:16 PM

netizencain: And quit giving them the good parking spots in the front of my office.  They should have to park in the back lot.  Let the gas guzzlers park up front... makes them drive less, saves the earth.  Right?


The local Target has parking spaces reserved for hybrids, next to the handicapped spots. Where does a chain store get off discriminating on the basis of the cars people drive. It would make more sense to force people with SUVs to park far away as a punishment.

This really should be illegal (and it probably is). I usually park my 1988 Olds in those spots. After all, are the Target Gestapo going to haul me off to the gulag?
 
2013-02-01 09:03:38 PM
Oh, I don't know, how about we raise the gas tax? It's a pretty direct and proportional usage fee, just behind tolls.

Doesn't everyone pay a registration fee as well? You could raise that a bit. Usually that's by weight because bigger, heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, but that doesn't tax out of state drivers as much.

It's obviously a ploy for his oil company backers.
 
2013-02-01 09:04:12 PM
Since there's no farking way a $100 fee on hybrids offsets the revenue lost from removing the gas tax on everyone, how do we know registration fees for gas only vehicles, as well a number of other fees for everyone aren't going skyrocket?

At the end of the day it could be gas only vehicles paying more per year for a vehicle.

Hack journalism perfect for Fark.com
 
2013-02-01 09:05:13 PM

ha-ha-guy: Klom Dark: Put the tax onto commercial vehicles only

No good, that spikes food prices since it ups delivery costs of produce, meat, etc.  Those are items the government tries to keep inexpensive so everyone can afford to eat.  If you put the entire burden on commercial vehicles, that means we see an unpleasant amount of cost passed onto the consumer in areas we don't want it.

/although I do like the idea of taxing courier style companies (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc) more.
//one really nasty tax rate for every vehicle in their fleet that fails to meet specific MPG requirements and a much less nasty tax rate for those that do


If we put the entire burden on the commercial vehicles, then the noncommercial citizens will have more available cash too pay the slightly higher food prices. Taxes were originally a way for the government to share in the profits of the commercial trade, and life was much better then and we should return to it.

// phone is going dead, but will definitely be back to this discussion once i fed some juice into it.
 
2013-02-01 09:05:39 PM

SwiftFox: Hey, remember how the federal government killed diesel cars by doing exactly the same thing to them?


That was a planned killing.  Diesel cars increase the demand for the supply of diesel, which of course increases price.  That means trains, buses, and trucks pay more every time they fuel up.  So the city bus service costs more to run.  The light rail costs more to run.  Food costs more to move via truck (and thus food stamp programs increase in cost to society, etc).  It is also why every time a European company does some engineering changes and tries to introduce a diesel to the American market, the regulators find a way kill it.

European countries tolerate the diesel car since they have electric passenger rail, tend to have subways instead of bus systems, and a much smaller trucking industry.

/if you're a diesel car lover it sucks, but it starts making sense on a macro scale
 
2013-02-01 09:06:27 PM

propasaurus: Supes: Blues_X: "It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.

It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid drivers, and also a few other unrelated taxes (sales tax increase, car registration fee).

In principle this has the sliver of a good idea.... gas taxes pay for infrastructure/road maintenance, and hybrid or electric cars use the road as much as other cars. There is no reason they shouldn't pay equally to maintain these roads.

The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.

In that case, why not a tax based on actual road usage? If you drive more, you pay more.


Um, don't we have that already? It's called a gas tax. No need to put GPS systems in cars so "the government can track terrorists" or some idiot 1984 NewSpeak like that.
 
2013-02-01 09:07:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: SwiftFox: Hey, remember how the federal government killed diesel cars by doing exactly the same thing to them?

That was a planned killing.  Diesel cars increase the demand for the supply of diesel, which of course increases price.  That means trains, buses, and trucks pay more every time they fuel up.  So the city bus service costs more to run.  The light rail costs more to run.  Food costs more to move via truck (and thus food stamp programs increase in cost to society, etc).  It is also why every time a European company does some engineering changes and tries to introduce a diesel to the American market, the regulators find a way kill it.

European countries tolerate the diesel car since they have electric passenger rail, tend to have subways instead of bus systems, and a much smaller trucking industry.

/if you're a diesel car lover it sucks, but it starts making sense on a macro scale


Fuel oil goes in there somewhere. It's diesel.
 
2013-02-01 09:07:35 PM

flamingboard: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

Name one time a bicycle caused a road to need to be repaired. It's a heavy trucks that are causing all the damage.


Name one other group of people that have lanes built onto already existing roads, costing counties and states millions in labor, equipment, and supplies.
 
2013-02-01 09:09:33 PM

LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.


Not only that, if they want to be on public roads, they should have to pay a licensing fee, take a test (on road safety), and carry liability insurance.

Yes, I'm so stupid for wanting a growing group of people to be responsible on public roadways.  So silly of me.
 
2013-02-01 09:10:00 PM
tax tires. No way to get around using them up. If you drive more you use tires more.
 
2013-02-01 09:13:34 PM

aseras: tax tires. No way to get around using them up. If you drive more you use tires more.


being done already.
 
2013-02-01 09:15:06 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: hosalabad: Prank Call of Cthulhu: As a Virginia Prius driver...I'm not really sure if I'm getting a kick out of this. Last year I bought 217 gallons of gas. So this would basically be a $0.46/gal tax on me. Is that more or less than current taxes? My guess is more, but overall it doesn't seem worth complaining about.

Hey, how many miles driven?

About 10,950.


You must not be the type of Prius driver I saw last that chose to show how much power his car had.  Just like the last electric/gas Honda hybrid I saw, they both pushed their cars hard to stay ahead of me.  After awhile I gave it more gas at the next light just to show them I could spank them if I wanted to.  After showing the Honda what real acceleration looks like, he showed me that speed limits meant nothing to him.  I bet their gas mileage doesn't match what the manufacturer told them they would get.  Rarely do I smash the pedal down and when I do it is to merge safely onto the highway.  Otherwise a little more than half pedal will outpace a Prius or most Chevy trucks.  I take care of my vehicles and get better than average fuel economy.  If you do, good for you.
 
2013-02-01 09:21:36 PM

markie_farkie: Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).

Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an ever-increasing number of vehicles that use less and less gas, and more and more energy derived from other sources.  Grid-connected smart meters could be configured to detect charging, and add a vehicle surcharge for just that portion of the kilowatts consumed.  Of course, if the source is solar and off the grid, well, that's another can of worms.

Ultimately, some sort of Federally-mandated usage sensitive taxing model will have to be developed, and your car will have a GPS-encoded meter in it that phones home to some agency and debits your bank account, just like filling up on a tank of gas does today.

I'm sure there will be all kinds of sinister "THEY GONNA TRACK MAH MOVEMENTS" people coming out of the woodwork over that, but hey, driving is a privilege, not a right.  Public roadway use in a registered vehicle implies consent to usage monitoring, etc.

Take a bike, or walk, if you don't want anyone knowing where you are going.  And make sure you leave your cellphone behind, too.


No, driving is a necessity. I'd call that a de facto right. There's no place to live within walking distance of where I work, nor is there public transit. I wish there was, on both counts.

Even if driving is a 'privilege' I'm not sure where the government gets the notion it can tell people if they can drive or not (ie, considering driving a privilege). We all pay taxes which pay for roads, ergo, I'd say driving is a right, unless you're incapable or there's good reason to think you're a danger to others.

I worked for a few years in anti-terrorist studies. The last thing you want is the clowns who make a living getting inside the minds of alQaeda getting the notion that there's the capability to track your movements. The next thing they'll want to do is to see what books or online stuff you're reading, etc. etc. etc. That's their mentality. It's all for your own good, citizen. It's a very slippery slope.

I really don't see where having a registered vehicle implies consent to monitor usage. It allows my vehicle to be identified if it's used in an illegal or unsafe manner. That's a long ways from monitoring usage.  That's like saying that if I walk outside my house on a public (paid for by the government) sidewalk a cop has the right to follow me just to see what I'm up to, for no reason other than he feels like it.
 
2013-02-01 09:24:11 PM

ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.

I'm sorry, can you point out where I said the state bears the cost of those improvements? You said there was no cost in road maintenance for bikes, I disagreed.  Where did I talk about state or federal funding or anything of that nature?  Keep trying.


Because this thread is about state gas tax. Which pays for road maintenance but not for inner-city bike lanes. The bicyclists pay as much as anyone else does for such road use and construction already, those are paid for with property tax. So, again, retarded suggestion.

I get it, you think bicyclists are freeloading. You're just wrong.
 
2013-02-01 09:25:30 PM

Supes: Blues_X: "It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.

It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid drivers, and also a few other unrelated taxes (sales tax increase, car registration fee).

In principle this has the sliver of a good idea.... gas taxes pay for infrastructure/road maintenance, and hybrid or electric cars use the road as much as other cars. There is no reason they shouldn't pay equally to maintain these roads.

The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.


Also I'd like to point out that people having TWO cars makes a lot of sense.
Almost nobody wants an electric car as their ONLY car.  Its fixed range means it won't work for things you may only do 5% of the time, but still HAVE to do.
Similarly, the small, gas-sipping commuter car can't be a truck.  It's ecologically sound to have a truck that sits in the driveway 95% of the time and then brings home the plywood when you need it, while you commute back and forth in a 35 mpg the rest of the time.

But you do these fixed-vehicle fees and that starts making the truck-only option more attractive.  Well, the largest single vehicle you can afford to drive, esp an SUV that can haul plywood or a flatscreen TV or whatever.  Not that $100/yr is a total dealbreaker, but there's already a huge, unfair burden on "second cars".  Registration is ~$60 annually, inspection $30 or so, and the big one is insurance, which is usually several hundred more $ per year.

Paying a second time for inspection, I've no problem with, that makes sense.  But the second registration and second insurance if you're only ONE driver is a major ripoff.  There's not two cars on the road at the same time.  I understand the explanation t that it's impractical to prevent people from putting their two cars on the road at the same time, but it IS hurting our capacity to adopt more efficient small (or electric) cars for most things.  We need to move in the opposite direction AWAY FROM per-car charges, not ADD to it.
 
2013-02-01 09:28:17 PM

johnryan51: Can't tax the rich. Gotta find the money somewhere.


You can try to tax the rich, but they have the means to move to a lower-tax district. Just ask massachusetts and california.
 
2013-02-01 09:30:23 PM

LavenderWolf: ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.

I'm sorry, can you point out where I said the state bears the cost of those improvements? You said there was no cost in road maintenance for bikes, I disagreed.  Where did I talk about state or federal funding or anything of that nature?  Keep trying.

Because this thread is about state gas tax. Which pays for road maintenance but not for inner-city bike lanes. The bicyclists pay as much as anyone else does for such road use and construction already, those are paid for with property tax. So, again, retarded suggestion.

I get it, you think bicyclists are freeloading. You're just wrong.


Are you the one on glue maybe?

I bike to work three days a week, so you're welcome to stop making assumptions, shut the fark up, and slink out of the thread.  Your argument was "literally no damage" and "no justification for bike taxes", whereas bikes clearly have costs to society in terms of traffic control, creating lanes for them, plowing the bike lane in the winter and so on and so forth.   There is clearly a justification for bike taxes and the state clearly has justification to consider levying one.  After all I can bike on a two lane state road legally, as long as it isn't limited access, which means the state is paying to keep that road open for my bike.

I get it though, you came into this thread to be the entitled little biker troll, accuse people of sniffing glue, and other general abrasive behavior.  I guess I'm the sucker for responding to you, enh?
 
2013-02-01 09:30:44 PM

LavenderWolf: I get it, you think bicyclists are freeloading. You're just wrong.


They need to pay for my brake pads.
 
2013-02-01 09:31:01 PM

Alphakronik: LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.

Not only that, if they want to be on public roads, they should have to pay a licensing fee, take a test (on road safety), and carry liability insurance.

Yes, I'm so stupid for wanting a growing group of people to be responsible on public roadways.  So silly of me.


Those have nothing to do with a usage fee for roads. I have a permanent disability because of some asshole on a bicycle not following the rules of the road. Don't change the farming subject just because you realize how stupid your original assertion was.
 
2013-02-01 09:31:15 PM
By that logic, people who don't smoke and drink should pay $100 fees too.
 
2013-02-01 09:32:05 PM

ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.

I'm sorry, can you point out where I said the state bears the cost of those improvements? You said there was no cost in road maintenance for bikes, I disagreed.  Where did I talk about state or federal funding or anything of that nature?  Keep trying.

Because this thread is about state gas tax. Which pays for road maintenance but not for inner-city bike lanes. The bicyclists pay as much as anyone else does for such road use and construction already, those are paid for with property tax. So, again, retarded suggestion.

I get it, you think bicyclists are freeloading. You're just wrong.

Are you the one on glue maybe?

I bike to work three days a week, so you're welcome to stop making assumptions, shut the fark up, and slink out of the thread.  Your argument was "literally no damage" and "no justification for bike taxes", whereas bikes clearly have costs to society in terms of traffic control, creating lanes for them, plowing the bike lane in the winter and so on and so forth.   There is clearly a justification for bike taxes and the state clearly has justification to consider levying one.  After all I can bike on a two lane state road legally, as long as it isn't limited access, which means the state is paying to keep that road open for my bike.

I get it though, you came into this thread to be the entitled little biker troll, accuse people of sniffing glue, and other general abrasive behavior.  I guess I'm the sucker for responding to you, enh?


Biker troll? Hah. Read my previous post in thread.
 
2013-02-01 09:33:11 PM

LavenderWolf: Biker troll? Hah. Read my previous post in thread.


So bicyclists aren't using the roads? Do they not impede traffic, either?
 
2013-02-01 09:36:10 PM

ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Try again. Those are created and controlled by the city they are in, paid for with the property taxes of those riders. Nothing to do with state or federal government, and so, it's stupid to suggest a state tax bicycles.

I'm sorry, can you point out where I said the state bears the cost of those improvements? You said there was no cost in road maintenance for bikes, I disagreed.  Where did I talk about state or federal funding or anything of that nature?  Keep trying.

Because this thread is about state gas tax. Which pays for road maintenance but not for inner-city bike lanes. The bicyclists pay as much as anyone else does for such road use and construction already, those are paid for with property tax. So, again, retarded suggestion.

I get it, you think bicyclists are freeloading. You're just wrong.

Are you the one on glue maybe?

I bike to work three days a week, so you're welcome to stop making assumptions, shut the fark up, and slink out of the thread.  Your argument was "literally no damage" and "no justification for bike taxes", whereas bikes clearly have costs to society in terms of traffic control, creating lanes for them, plowing the bike lane in the winter and so on and so forth.   There is clearly a justification for bike taxes and the state clearly has justification to consider levying one.  After all I can bike on a two lane state road legally, as long as it isn't limited access, which means the state is paying to keep that road open for my bike.

I get it though, you came into this thread to be the entitled little biker troll, accuse people of sniffing glue, and other general abrasive behavior.  I guess I'm the sucker for responding to you, enh?


And again, because you seem to have missed it, bikers already pay for bike lanes and signage the same way car drivers do, in such places where bike lanes exist. Property taxes.

/I don't own a bike.
 
2013-02-01 09:42:52 PM

Alphakronik: flamingboard: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

Name one time a bicycle caused a road to need to be repaired. It's a heavy trucks that are causing all the damage.

Name one other group of people that have lanes built onto already existing roads, costing counties and states millions in labor, equipment, and supplies.


Sidewalks should be toll walkways.
 
2013-02-01 09:47:20 PM

Osomatic: JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!

It's actually possible that hybrid owners might be convinced to pay a fee to make up for lost revenue, but it's idiotic to expect them to do that while at the same time removing the existing gas tax.  In this case, hybrid owners aren't being asked to pay their fair share, they're being asked to be the only ones who pay any tax at all.  That's a fair share?

Anyway, what this really is is a "fark you, liberals" sop to the governor's base.


"They're being asked to be the only ones who pay any tax at all. That's a fair share?"

Hmmm. Where else in our society have I heard people claim that some people weren't paying taxes and a smaller group were paying the majority to make up for it? I can't quite remember. My mind is only 47% working right now.
 
2013-02-01 09:47:51 PM

Klom Dark: ha-ha-guy: Klom Dark: Put the tax onto commercial vehicles only

No good, that spikes food prices since it ups delivery costs of produce, meat, etc.  Those are items the government tries to keep inexpensive so everyone can afford to eat.  If you put the entire burden on commercial vehicles, that means we see an unpleasant amount of cost passed onto the consumer in areas we don't want it.

/although I do like the idea of taxing courier style companies (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc) more.
//one really nasty tax rate for every vehicle in their fleet that fails to meet specific MPG requirements and a much less nasty tax rate for those that do

If we put the entire burden on the commercial vehicles, then the noncommercial citizens will have more available cash too pay the slightly higher food prices. Taxes were originally a way for the government to share in the profits of the commercial trade, and life was much better then and we should return to it.

// phone is going dead, but will definitely be back to this discussion once i fed some juice into it.


While I don't disagree about the government getting a cut of commercial trade, the big issue the profit from that commercial trade occurs in multiple places as the good passes through the system.  Everyone is involved in that system uses the roads in a direct or indirect manner.  With regard to the indirect manner, I am more likely to speculate on American milk and future milk futures because I know the milk can safely move from the dairy to the store whereas milk in Angola could end up stranded who knows where due to their shiatty infrastructure.  So my speculation will increase the per unit cost of milk.  In turn the price of milk goes up as it moves down the line or people who handle the milk later take a smaller profit (or possible loss).  So even though I'll never actually move a drop of that milk, I'm benefiting from the fact America has established public infrastructure.  You could argue anyone who does business in America should have to pay a "We don't have shiat infrastructure tax" since it makes their business dealings more stable.

Basically my point, sorry if it was obtuse, is that you have to be careful about putting too many taxes on just one sector in the whole process.  You end up destroying that actor's profit margin.  That leads to other companies not wanting to enter that market and that reduces competition (or even worse that whole sector fails and you have to bail people out).  As it stands trucking companies already pay taxes to every state they travel through, even if they fail to buy gas there.  The truckers log their miles and then the company pays taxes.  I'm not against taxing the companies more, but my question is can we up the taxes enough to get a meaningful amount of money out of them for road upkeep without other problems.  Namely bankrupting companies or suddenly making it an unattractive sector to enter, which reduces competition in the future because companies aren't replaced when they close down.  

Plus going back to the food example, you'd likely need some exemptions.  After all there are areas where the government feels keeping the price low is better than getting a cut of the profit.  With food for example you could have higher food prices and the government gets more money.  However they'd have to turn around and pay that money out in the form of increased food stamp usage.  All that has happened is now a certain amount of money is lost in the form of upkeep cost for government bureaucracy.  So if you put more taxes on commercial vehicles you likely end up needing more individuals to handle tax collection, audits, all the exemption paperwork, etc.  If you say collect 600k more in taxes but you spend another 400k to collect those taxes, it is a poor return on society's investment.

I don't disagree with look at what commercial vehicles pay relative to the damage they do, but if the fact commercial vehicles generate a lot of economic growth or the like due to the fact logistics are inexpensive, we might want to consider if we take the money from the trucking company that is making a 3% profit or the guy who is making a 25% profit because he can get his product anywhere in America within two business days.
 
2013-02-01 09:58:18 PM
Virginia governor Bob McDonnell proposes a $100 fee on hybrid drivers to replace the tax money they're not paying on gasoline. pay back his big oil donors.
 
2013-02-01 09:58:54 PM
Here comes the Bike tax.
 
2013-02-01 10:01:47 PM
I've said this before but it seems relevant again.

When I pull up next to a Prius at a stoplight I stomp on the gas in my 5.7 liter V8 two-door hoping that it bugs them. It gets about 15 MPG now in the winter and it doesn't haul anything. Take that you stupid environment.
 
2013-02-01 10:02:53 PM

LindenFark: 100 Watt Walrus:
HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the number of cars on the road. Driving a hybrid doesn't help with traffic.

HOV lanes are supposed to help reduce the amount of pollution generated by vehicles, and reducing the number of cars is just one way to do that. Less traffic is the incentive, not the goal. The government doesn't give a damn about shaving ten minutes off your commute.


It's the other way around. HOV lanes were created to ease traffic. You can't have a functioning economy in heavily populated areas if nobody can get to work on time.

If you google "HOV lanes," every link on the first page of results - including the DOTs of several states and Wikipedia - all talk about traffic reduction. Only two mention pollution, and neither of those mention it first.
 
2013-02-01 10:03:03 PM

Dinjiin: Supes: Probably be way too expensive to administer

Non-arterial roads (read: side streets) should be paid for by property taxes against the properties facing on those roads.  Even if you don't drive [much], they are essential for goods and services to your home.

For arterial roads and expressways, let a per-mile tax kick in when the roadway is excessively expensive to build or maintain.  You could use an all-camera system like London, but that has some privacy implications.  Slightly better would be to use an RF transponder in your vehicle in combination with a payment card that is read by sensors as you drive past them.  Sell the cards and refills at kiosks [that accept cash] located at gas stations and rest stops.  If you don't care about the government knowing who you are, register a CC or some other type of EFT to your transponder card and get billed weekly.  If your card is empty, then the system falls back to photo billing.

Such a system would take a lot of pressure off of the gas tax, which might make people care a lot less about hybrids and AFVs.


Why spend all that time and effort coming up with ridiculously convoluted methods for collecting revenue?  Because it's just ideology against taxes. What the fark is wrong with a gas tax?  Why is it that we've managed to have these processes functioning well and effectively for the last 50+ years, but all of a sudden a bunch of Ayn Rand-wankers are so mouth-foaming mad about anything called a "tax" that you'll sit around daydreaming fantasies of other ways to confiscate the same dollars?
 
2013-02-01 10:04:51 PM

aukutsutsu: I've said this before but it seems relevant again.

When I pull up next to a Prius at a stoplight I stomp on the gas in my 5.7 liter V8 two-door hoping that it bugs them. It gets about 15 MPG now in the winter and it doesn't haul anything. Take that you stupid environment.


I wish I was cool like you. Mommy, can I please be a big dick who wastes his own money money in the hopes it will perturb strangers for no reason?
 
2013-02-01 10:05:32 PM
Oh and also your electric car powered by a coal plant isn't any better than a gas burning car. Unless your on hydro electric power your taking the fun out of driving for no reason
 
2013-02-01 10:11:57 PM

aukutsutsu: Oh and also your electric car powered by a coal plant isn't any better than a gas burning car. Unless your on hydro electric power your taking the fun out of driving for no reason


It's much easier to replace one coal power plant with a nuclear reactor than it is to replace tens of thousands of cars with some new car that uses a cleaner power train.  The electric vehicle is power source agnostic in that all it wants is current from a socket.  One construction project is all it takes to move a batch of electric vehicles from one source of energy to another.  Much easier to leverage cheaper and cleaner power generation technologies when there is just one object you need to replace.

It's not about the plugin or electric vehicle magically filling the world with unicorn farts, it is about setting up personal transportation to leverage technology changes better.
 
2013-02-01 10:19:37 PM
This is brought to you by the same state that just a few years ago PASSED draconian traffic law reform (written by a GOD DAMN TRAFFIC ATTORNEY) that punished residents of VA far more than out-of-state commuters.
Yea, can anyone say conflict of interest? So glad they repealed that piece of shiat.
 
2013-02-01 10:23:03 PM

aukutsutsu: Oh and also your electric car powered by a coal plant isn't any better than a gas burning car. Unless your on hydro electric power your taking the fun out of driving for no reason


Estimates vary, but most figures I've seen show that an electric car charged from a coal burning plant puts about 10-15% less CO2 into the atmosphere than a similar car burning gasoline.

The other advantage is that any improvement in generating the power is by extension transferred to all of the cars that are charged, so if you replace that coal plant with hydro/solar/wind/etc, you've "upgraded" all of the electric cars to greener power. You couldn't do that with 100,000 gas cars.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gearhead and love my internal combustion engines, but for basic transportation hybrids and to a lesser extent, pure electric cars are to be encouraged. Besides, that leaves more gas for me to burn.
 
2013-02-01 10:24:31 PM

JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!





What about bicycles and joggers?
 
2013-02-01 10:41:26 PM
I drive a Hybrid, and I only get like 23 miles a gallon.  I know, I must be doing it wrong... the point is, I'm using just as much gas as the rest of you mouthbreathers.  Why should I have to pay just because I can drive in the HOV lane and you can't?
 
2013-02-01 10:42:07 PM
Okay trolling aside, I do really love my roaring V8 as opposed to a whirring electric. But I don't drove far, and even with my large displacement I'm sure I'm better for the environment than most.

But, once the oil is gone I will convert to Mobil Dick Whale Oil if it means I can listen to my V8 sound. Also, watch out for that device that slows the passage of time. It's a doozy.
 
2013-02-01 10:51:41 PM
Driving an electric car isn't fun because it doesnt go HRHGRGHGRHGRHGRHGRGRHGRGRHRHRRHRRHRHRHR

AM I RIGHT????

I feel like my dick is bigger when my car goes GRHGRHGRHGHGHRHHGRHGRGRHGRHRHGRHGRHGRgrGRHGR
 
2013-02-01 10:53:28 PM

markie_farkie: Over the next 20-30 years, there will be an ever-increasing number of vehicles that use less and less gas, and more and more energy derived from other sources. Grid-connected smart meters could be configured to detect charging, and add a vehicle surcharge for just that portion of the kilowatts consumed. Of course, if the source is solar and off the grid, well, that's another can of worms.


Jesus, man.  If you're taking the time and money to build a bloody solar plant to generate your own electricity to drive your electric car, at some point maybe you're just a farking good guy and you get to drive the car.

I don't get the people in here arguing that the gas tax isn't proportionate to wear and tear on the roads.  Size wastes gas.  Speed wastes gas.  Driving more wastes gas.  Coincidentally, all these things also put more wear and tear on the road.  The idiot driving his F-350 at 90 miles an hour two hours each way to work is bad, should feel bad, and should probably pay more taxes.

/MR2 and a Mini
//speed limit adherent
///not quite ready to jump on the hybrid bandwagon
 
2013-02-01 10:54:04 PM
So, punish anyone who dares to try escaping the Saudi Oil Sheiks, huh? How American.
 
2013-02-01 10:54:11 PM
everyjewels.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-01 11:03:08 PM

DaShredda: Driving an electric car isn't fun because it doesnt go HRHGRGHGRHGRHGRHGRGRHGRGRHRHRRHRRHRHRHR

AM I RIGHT????

I feel like my dick is bigger when my car goes GRHGRHGRHGHGHRHHGRHGRGRHGRHRHGRHGRHGRgrGRHGR


Ha ha this made me laugh. And the biggest reason I think my car is more fun is because it is rear wheel drive and has a 0 to 60 time that doesn't need a minute hand to measure.
 
2013-02-01 11:04:04 PM
Oh and can you get a hybrid in a manual transmission?
 
2013-02-01 11:09:02 PM

pseydtonne: The only tamper-free way to track mileage is through the existing odometer. You can hack an add-on GPS tool but it's illegal to mess with an odometer.


Since when has illegality stopped people breaking the law? It's no more difficult to turn back an odometer than it is to hack an add-on GPS; arguably it's more-so since the add-on GPS can be configured to upload 24/7 in realtime, meaning the information has been received before you have the opportunity to dial it back. The only way to hack that is to replace the firmware of the device, or somehow block its connectivity to the GPS satellites.
 
2013-02-01 11:14:12 PM

aukutsutsu: Oh and can you get a hybrid in a manual transmission?


Yes. "The Honda CR-Z is the world's first production hybrid vehicle to offer a 6-speed manual transmission."

And as for 0-60, the CR-Z will do nine seconds flat. Sure, that's not a sports car, but it's plenty for most folks.
 
2013-02-01 11:16:39 PM

Supes: Blues_X: "It's meant to compensate for the federal gas tax that those vehicles do not pay," he said.

So, you think you can collect federal money under a state law?

I'm not sure it works like that.

It's a mistake. Virginia has a 17.5 cent state gas tax. This proposal would get rid of that, impose a $100 fee on hybrid drivers, and also a few other unrelated taxes (sales tax increase, car registration fee).

In principle this has the sliver of a good idea.... gas taxes pay for infrastructure/road maintenance, and hybrid or electric cars use the road as much as other cars. There is no reason they shouldn't pay equally to maintain these roads.

The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid.  Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.


Hm, at least it's better than Washington's plan...

 -Which is to tax *everyone* an extra tax because of "hybrids" and not remove the gas tax either.

/and they wonder why we hate them.
 
2013-02-01 11:17:10 PM

oryx: By that logic, people who don't smoke and drink should pay $100 fees too.


or people should pay a fee if they don't have health insur-  wait
 
2013-02-01 11:20:17 PM

Krieghund: markie_farkie: Long-term, this will have to be addressed somehow.

State and Federal tax dollars collected on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel are used to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. (Allegedly, based on the condition of some roads I've had the misfortune to drive on).


We could stop subsidizing oil production and apply that money to the transportation infrastructure, for starters.


The government gives money to people to produce gasoline.

 It then taxes that gasoline when they sell it.

 And to them, this makes sound financial sense.
 
2013-02-01 11:21:52 PM
The problem with reducing the gas tax is this:

People have proved that they'll pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. If the $0.175/gal gas tax is eliminated, what's to keep the gas companies from raising the price of gas by $0.175/gal? I mean, if people will pay that much, why would they ever charge less, given that gas is a commodity?
 
2013-02-01 11:24:26 PM
This is nothing more than a way for Virginia to raise taxes on the poor.  Plan and simple.   Gov. McDonnell is proposing cutting the gas tax and raising the sales tax, the hybrid thing is a excuse.   Ride a bike? More taxes on tires.  Walk to work? More taxes on shoes.  Don't poor to own a car?  Too bad, more taxes on bread and milk.  But, if you own a Range Rover and don't spend most of your money, you might save money, but you tax increase will a percentage less than the working mother who spends all her money on feeding and housing her kids.
 
2013-02-01 11:25:04 PM

aukutsutsu: Oh and can you get a hybrid in a manual transmission?


We just solved the issue of displacement on demand and manuals.  There is an active project for hybrid performance vehicles that involves a manual transmission.  However the future is in AWD performance vehicles that use only electric motors and have instantaneous max torque output.  There are test mules that will utterly destroy a ZR-1 off the line, right up until the first corner where all the batteries give the car the cornering abilities of an elephant.  As batteries get cheaper and lighter, V8s will be a joke to the performance world.  Torque curve?  You mean you drive something that doesn't produce max torque on demand?  You have to shift gears to get peak production?  That sounds slow and pathetic.

Performance wise gas engines only edge at this point is you can get a lot of power out of 18 gallons of gas without adding a lot of gas to the car.

/If you offer me a platform where I can instantly change the torque output on any wheel and that platform weighs under 3,200 pounds, I'll personally push my CTS-V into the car crusher to get my hands on that
//well also it needs a good zero to sixty and ability to run at high speeds for at least 100 miles
 
2013-02-01 11:34:10 PM
Reminds me of a story Michael Faraday is giving a dog and pony show.  After showing a member of parliament an early electric motor, the man says, yes but what is it good for? Faraday responded, I don't know, but some day you'll propose to tax it.

Personally I can tell is there is an organized campaign to tax electric cars by the oil companies, or if it's politicians just being stupid.  Both?  Maybe just butthurt that tax revenue isn't meeting projections on account of working people not having money for gasoline.

\Not that passenger cars do much damage to the road vs buses and trucks.
 
2013-02-01 11:35:03 PM

ha-ha-guy: aukutsutsu: Oh and can you get a hybrid in a manual transmission?

We just solved the issue of displacement on demand and manuals.  There is an active project for hybrid performance vehicles that involves a manual transmission.  However the future is in AWD performance vehicles that use only electric motors and have instantaneous max torque output.  There are test mules that will utterly destroy a ZR-1 off the line, right up until the first corner where all the batteries give the car the cornering abilities of an elephant.  As batteries get cheaper and lighter, V8s will be a joke to the performance world.  Torque curve?  You mean you drive something that doesn't produce max torque on demand?  You have to shift gears to get peak production?  That sounds slow and pathetic.

Performance wise gas engines only edge at this point is you can get a lot of power out of 18 gallons of gas without adding a lot of gas to the car.

/If you offer me a platform where I can instantly change the torque output on any wheel and that platform weighs under 3,200 pounds, I'll personally push my CTS-V into the car crusher to get my hands on that
//well also it needs a good zero to sixty and ability to run at high speeds for at least 100 miles


If it was entirely about performance, I would have a mustang with the 5.0 auto.

I drive a manual because I like shifting gears, not for performance. Also my car corners like a light beam. There is much more to it, like practicality (my trunk is actually useful), comfort (my front seats are much more roomy than my previous econobox car), and appearance, which is terrible with hybrids.
 
2013-02-01 11:38:52 PM

aukutsutsu: Also my car corners like a light beam.


Only slightly when travelling over great distances?
 
2013-02-01 11:57:13 PM

Huggermugger: What the fark is wrong with a gas tax?


In all fairness, taxes should be based on your vehicle's weight, footprint and amount driven.  But a gas tax involves so many other variables.  Doing a lot of short trips with a cold engine, lots of stop-and-go driving, city driving or having a performance engine will skew you towards paying more tax per mile.  Long trips, freeway driving during off hours or having a hybrid engine skews you towards paying less tax per mile.

I don't see what is particularly complicated with what I proposed.  It can't be any worse than the formulas different jurisdictions use to slice up gas taxes as-is.
 
2013-02-01 11:59:55 PM

Blues_X: Supes: The big problem is getting rid of the gas tax also, which basically means ONLY hybrid drivers will pay extra to maintain the roads, not drivers of normal cars. Which is just stupid. Either impose an equal yearly fee (say, $25) for ALL cars and get rid of gas taxes, or maintain the gas tax and also add a small surcharge to hybrid drivers.

I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.


I think you're probably right about his motives.


ZOMFG IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
 
2013-02-02 12:02:02 AM

ph0rk: LavenderWolf: Biker troll? Hah. Read my previous post in thread.

So bicyclists aren't using the roads? Do they not impede traffic, either?


Neither of those have anything to do with what I said.

A) There is zero maintenance caused by bicyclists; a bicyclist is too light to cause wear and tear, and weather erosion would render a road unusable before cyclists would impact it.

B) There is zero justification for a biker tax. Bikers already pay their fair share of inner-city road maintenance and signage, more than their fair share actually, since they pay an equal amount to a car driving property tax payer.

/Let's keep pretending LavenderWolf said bicyclists have no faults!
 
2013-02-02 12:15:42 AM

LavenderWolf: ph0rk: LavenderWolf: Biker troll? Hah. Read my previous post in thread.

So bicyclists aren't using the roads? Do they not impede traffic, either?

Neither of those have anything to do with what I said.

A) There is zero maintenance caused by bicyclists; a bicyclist is too light to cause wear and tear, and weather erosion would render a road unusable before cyclists would impact it.

B) There is zero justification for a biker tax. Bikers already pay their fair share of inner-city road maintenance and signage, more than their fair share actually, since they pay an equal amount to a car driving property tax payer.

/Let's keep pretending LavenderWolf said bicyclists have no faults!


A vehicle going slower over a section of road does more damage to it than one going faster. Bikes cause heavy vehicles to slow down or stop, therefore causing wear and tear on the road. The wear and tear just doesn't come from the wheels of the bike. They need to be taxed just like the rest.
 
2013-02-02 12:30:30 AM
We incentivize low-pollution technologies which might not make microenonomic sense to the individual otherwise for a reason. It's the government paying to encourage their adoption and artificially pressuring the free market.
 
2013-02-02 12:30:37 AM

Benjimin_Dover: A vehicle going slower over a section of road does more damage to it than one going faster.


Not necessarily.  A faster vehicle creates more vibrations.  It is why DOTs will often lower the speed limit on really old bridges that are becoming structurally unsound.
 
2013-02-02 12:32:01 AM
Missouri already has that tax in place.  If you drive an "alternative fuel vehicle" you are supposed to have a sticker that is renewed annually at $150/vehicle since you are not paying gasoline taxes.  Back in the 80's I had a propane powered pickup and was cited for not having a sticker.  Won't be long before some bright politician figures out hybrid battery vehicle qualify.
 
2013-02-02 12:38:19 AM
Tax by vehicle engine emissions. Works like a charm. :]
 
2013-02-02 12:57:01 AM

Cymbal: Just add a tax to all luxury vehicle purchases/yearly registrations. If your car's Kelly Blue book value is over 40k, you get taxed, etc.


We had that until 2002 after the Clinton administration pushed it through.  Wildly unpopular with just about everybody.
 
2013-02-02 01:12:03 AM

ph0rk: So bicyclists aren't using the roads? Do they not impede traffic, either?


Bicyclists don't need the big wide paved road. They can get by with a nice dirt track. A fair road use tax for a bicyclist would cost more to collect. The stamp to mail it would cost more. That's why bicyclists don't pay a specific road tax. What they pay for roads in other taxes more than covers it. Plus most bicyclists own at least one car, so there's that too. When they are bicycling they aren't using the car that they paid to use so there is a net benefit. The number of carless bicyclists is small enough not to be worth the bother.

Dinjiin:  For arterial roads and expressways, let a per-mile tax kick in when the roadway is excessively expensive to build or maintain.  You could use an all-camera system like London, but that has some privacy implications.  Slightly better would be to use an RF transponder in your vehicle in combination with a payment card that is read by sensors as you drive past them.  Sell the cards and refills at kiosks [that accept cash] located at gas stations and rest stops.  If you don't care about the government knowing who you are, register a CC or some other type of EFT to your transponder card and get billed weekly.  If your card is empty, then the system falls back to photo billing.

That's what government wants because of the side benefits. It's a very expensive system and will consume years of revenue to implement and then a lot of overhead to maintain. But the side benefits for government keeping tabs on everyone's driving and being able to expand power with restricting people from certain areas and so forth is just too tempting for them. They will use electric cars as the excuse for this new power, but ultimately the simple fuel tax is the best method all things considered if we are going to have government roads.

To deal with electric cars there are few choices. Smart meters have very intrusive capabilities, although unused. If they are forced upon us it will be easy to tax the charging of the car. The charger will simply be identified via the HAN. Ideally smart meters would only eliminate meter readers going door to door, but sadly they can do much more, but lets say that's all that is done and is ever done for the sake of argument. There could be a separate meter for the charger that reports back or some simple way of having the meter just report house and car separately. Without that, a flat fee is a crude patch, a simple mileage recorder could work. Since there aren't many pure electrics a tiny uptick in the fuel taxes would be a very poor way of dealing with it but far superior to tracking us all.

Dinjiin: Non-arterial roads (read: side streets) should be paid for by property taxes against the properties facing on those roads.  Even if you don't drive [much], they are essential for goods and services to your home.

Property taxes already pay for those roads in many areas of the country. It may not be broken out but residential streets are taken care of by the city, town, village, or county and they get the bulk of their revenue from property taxes. They may or may not have isolated gas tax fed road funds.

Benjimin_Dover: A vehicle going slower over a section of road does more damage to it than one going faster. Bikes cause heavy vehicles to slow down or stop, therefore causing wear and tear on the road. The wear and tear just doesn't come from the wheels of the bike. They need to be taxed just like the rest.


No. Drivers who can't pay attention and don't know how to drive (aren't able to time movements) slow down or stop because of bicyclists. Also pretty much anything under 5,000 lbs isn't an issue road wear wise. Heavy trucks do almost all the road wear and tear and all the other road users subsidize them.

The stress from a passenger vehicle on the roadway designed to carry trucks is simply so tiny as to not really be much of a factor for wear. In fatigue it's all about the stress the material sees. Stress is load over area, so designing for truck loads, fatigue from trucks, means fatigue from passenger cars is essentially infinite life. Weather will do more damage to such roads.

So, let's get to the real reason people want to tax bicycling. The real reason is that they want to discourage bicycling. It's just another way of using government to bring about conformity.
 
2013-02-02 01:25:09 AM
Makes sense to me. Road maintenance taxes should be a function of tires, weight, and miles driven, not mileage.
 
2013-02-02 01:30:47 AM
Taxing by weight isn't a bad idea. Michigan used to do that a long time ago but switched to vehicle price years ago. Also heavy trucks pay an extra tax already (Heavy Vehicle Use Tax http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/pdfs/fhwa8-page.pdf ). I also would not have a problem with taxing and registering bicycles. Say $20 a year if that money went to improve bicycle use infrastructure. If all bikes were properly registered maybe that would help a bit with theft. I've had a more than a few bikes stolen and anything that helps get bikes back is good in my book.
 
2013-02-02 01:37:07 AM
They should just tax Squirrel Chow.
 
2013-02-02 01:59:28 AM
Yawn.

Hey? Did you hear that Watfington State already does this?
 
2013-02-02 02:11:18 AM

leadmetal: It's a very expensive system and will consume years of revenue to implement  ... side benefits for government keeping tabs on everyone's driving


Costs are steeply falling for such systems.  Even now, costs aren't as high as you suggest, even with corrupt as hell agencies such as the WaDOT.  And transponder systems can maintain privacy as long as the ID is tied back to a card instead of the transponder itself.
 
2013-02-02 03:02:30 AM
Sounds like extortion to me.
 
2013-02-02 03:03:04 AM

Dinjiin: leadmetal: It's a very expensive system and will consume years of revenue to implement  ... side benefits for government keeping tabs on everyone's driving

Costs are steeply falling for such systems.  Even now, costs aren't as high as you suggest, even with corrupt as hell agencies such as the WaDOT.  And transponder systems can maintain privacy as long as the ID is tied back to a card instead of the transponder itself.


Stop being naive. Government is not going to implement the system in such a way that it cannot be tracked back to a person's movements. . That's the entire point of the system. They need an excuse for it. They've already been juggling the numbers to do it. thenewspaper.com exposed it a few years ago.

There will not be anonymous cards. There are already a number of toll road systems in place that use transponders and not one of them has anonymity as far as I know. Furthermore it's not just the transponders there is the camera system to get the plates of those who don't have transponders working and probably everyone. Then there are just plain number plate readers for the whole system.

As to costs, it's not that the units are getting cheaper, it's the huge number of them that would need to be installed and maintained that makes them very expensive.
 
2013-02-02 03:16:52 AM

JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.


The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


Fair enough, but not at all what this law is about, is it?
 
2013-02-02 03:23:24 AM

ha-ha-guy: LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.

Bikes require additional traffic control measures, like bike lanes, signs about bikes being present, etc.  There is a cost.  Try again.


Which is tiny compared to the externalities of the transportation sector of the fossil fuel industry.  YOU try again.
 
2013-02-02 03:27:08 AM

LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: LavenderWolf: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

No, they shouldn't, and you're stupid for suggesting otherwise. A bike does literally zero damage to a roadway. There is no justification for a tax on bicycles for the purpose of road maintenance.

Not only that, if they want to be on public roads, they should have to pay a licensing fee, take a test (on road safety), and carry liability insurance.

Yes, I'm so stupid for wanting a growing group of people to be responsible on public roadways.  So silly of me.

Those have nothing to do with a usage fee for roads. I have a permanent disability because of some asshole on a bicycle not following the rules of the road. Don't change the farming subject just because you realize how stupid your original assertion was.


Sorry about that.  Really.

But you're letting your personal experience color your analysis.

You REALLY think cyclists kill and maim as many people a year as drivers?
 
2013-02-02 03:27:43 AM

leadmetal: Government is not going to implement the system in such a way that it cannot be tracked back to a person's movements.


Probably depends a lot of the government.  Florida, yes.  Arizona, no.  A couple of lawsuits and some public initiatives would move a couple from the yes to no column.


leadmetal: it's the huge number of them that would need to be installed and maintained that makes them very expensive.


A lot of that would depend on the type of road you're tolling.  A London style congestion network would be very expensive.  Checking people who enter and leave a section of limited access road would be a lot less.  And you can push the cost of the vehicle transponders onto the driver.

But I can't see a transponder being more expensive than a secure GPS tracking device that calculates your mileage and records which jurisdiction owns the road you're on.
 
2013-02-02 03:35:47 AM

Alphakronik: flamingboard: Alphakronik: They did the same thing in Oregon.  Not really that big of deal.  Hell, bike riders should pay a fee as well if they ride on public roads.

Name one time a bicycle caused a road to need to be repaired. It's a heavy trucks that are causing all the damage.

Name one other group of people that have lanes built onto already existing roads, costing counties and states millions in labor, equipment, and supplies.


Car drivers.

Most paved roads in this country that date back to the the 1800s, besides the interstates, were paved for bicycles.

Add, oddly, our forefathers managed it without a bicycle tax.
Learn some history.
 
2013-02-02 05:17:36 AM

PunGent: Add, oddly, our forefathers managed it without a bicycle tax.


Yup. They did it with general revenue. That is to say, they got everybody to pay tax on it, whether they used it or not.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/davis.cfm
 
2013-02-02 07:27:41 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: No matter what you do, no matter how good your intent, or reasons for doing what you do, the government will ALWAYS find a loophole or make a new law to fark you out of your money. This surprises you how?


Meanwhile, 90% of the population is arguing with each other about which side is worse and politicians are laughing their asses off.
 
2013-02-02 09:37:56 AM

ha-ha-guy: aukutsutsu: Also my car corners like a light beam.

Only slightly when travelling over great distances?


Pretty much. Great for straight lines, but at 4100 lbs it's not for a slalom.
 
2013-02-02 10:01:34 AM
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. 
Vladimir Lenin

I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum. 
William Weld

No animal on the face of the earth could conceive of taxation. You and I work roughly six months a year to pay our local, state and federal taxes. If nothing else, this should convince you that animals are smarter than people. 
Rita Mae Brown

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before.
H. L. Mencken
 
2013-02-02 10:03:45 AM

Dinjiin: Benjimin_Dover: A vehicle going slower over a section of road does more damage to it than one going faster.

Not necessarily.  A faster vehicle creates more vibrations.  It is why DOTs will often lower the speed limit on really old bridges that are becoming structurally unsound.


That is true. Different road structures react differently. Ever see those ripples and dimples during the lead up section of road to an intersection? It's from vehicles sitting there and braking there.
 
2013-02-02 10:06:50 AM

leadmetal: ph0rk: So bicyclists aren't using the roads? Do they not impede traffic, either?

Bicyclists don't need the big wide paved road. They can get by with a nice dirt track. A fair road use tax for a bicyclist would cost more to collect. The stamp to mail it would cost more. That's why bicyclists don't pay a specific road tax. What they pay for roads in other taxes more than covers it. Plus most bicyclists own at least one car, so there's that too. When they are bicycling they aren't using the car that they paid to use so there is a net benefit. The number of carless bicyclists is small enough not to be worth the bother.

Dinjiin:  For arterial roads and expressways, let a per-mile tax kick in when the roadway is excessively expensive to build or maintain.  You could use an all-camera system like London, but that has some privacy implications.  Slightly better would be to use an RF transponder in your vehicle in combination with a payment card that is read by sensors as you drive past them.  Sell the cards and refills at kiosks [that accept cash] located at gas stations and rest stops.  If you don't care about the government knowing who you are, register a CC or some other type of EFT to your transponder card and get billed weekly.  If your card is empty, then the system falls back to photo billing.

That's what government wants because of the side benefits. It's a very expensive system and will consume years of revenue to implement and then a lot of overhead to maintain. But the side benefits for government keeping tabs on everyone's driving and being able to expand power with restricting people from certain areas and so forth is just too tempting for them. They will use electric cars as the excuse for this new power, but ultimately the simple fuel tax is the best method all things considered if we are going to have government roads.

To deal with electric cars there are few choices. Smart meters have very intrusive capabilities, although unused. If they are forced upon us it will be easy to tax the charging of the car. The charger will simply be identified via the HAN. Ideally smart meters would only eliminate meter readers going door to door, but sadly they can do much more, but lets say that's all that is done and is ever done for the sake of argument. There could be a separate meter for the charger that reports back or some simple way of having the meter just report house and car separately. Without that, a flat fee is a crude patch, a simple mileage recorder could work. Since there aren't many pure electrics a tiny uptick in the fuel taxes would be a very poor way of dealing with it but far superior to tracking us all.

Dinjiin: Non-arterial roads (read: side streets) should be paid for by property taxes against the properties facing on those roads.  Even if you don't drive [much], they are essential for goods and services to your home.

Property taxes already pay for those roads in many areas of the country. It may not be broken out but residential streets are taken care of by the city, town, village, or county and they get the bulk of their revenue from property taxes. They may or may not have isolated gas tax fed road funds.

Benjimin_Dover: A vehicle going slower over a section of road does more damage to it than one going faster. Bikes cause heavy vehicles to slow down or stop, therefore causing wear and tear on the road. The wear and tear just doesn't come from the wheels of the bike. They need to be taxed just like the rest.

No. Drivers who can't pay attention and don't know how to drive (aren't able to time movements) slow down or stop because of bicyclists. Also pretty much anything under 5,000 lbs isn't an issue road wear wise. Heavy trucks do almost all the road wear and tear and all the other road users subsidize them.

The stress from a passenger vehicle on the roadway designed to carry trucks is simply so tiny as to not really be much of a factor for wear. In fatigue it's all about the stress the material sees. Stress is load over area, so designing for truck loads, fatigue from trucks, means fatigue from passenger cars is essentially infinite life. Weather will do more damage to such roads.

So, let's get to the real reason people want to tax bicycling. The real reason is that they want to discourage bicycling. It's just another way of using government to bring about conformity.


So would we be in agreement that taxing something discourages that something?
 
2013-02-02 11:58:05 AM

enemy of the state: Um, don't we have that already? It's called a gas tax. No need to put GPS systems in cars so "the government can track terrorists" or some idiot 1984 NewSpeak like that.


We *had* that, because for a long time, gas was a reasonable proxy for road wear.  Heavier vehicles cause more wear, but heavier vehicles use more gas.  More driving causes more wear, but more driving uses more gas.  It made sense to do it that way, because as long as that worked, it was far easier than any of the more accurate alternatives.

But here we are today, where you can buy a fully electric car and drive it all over the place, wearing out the roads while paying no gas tax at all.  Or a hybrid or other high-efficiency vehicle that still weighs the same and causes the same road wear, while paying half the gas tax compared to similar vehicles.
 
2013-02-02 12:40:30 PM
Let the Free Market decide, indeed.
 
2013-02-02 02:27:39 PM
The idea is to punish hybrid users, but it needs to be taken farther.  I say, spend that $100 in gas, to be stockpiled for an end of the year gas explosion extravaganza.  Maybe have Ted Nugent do a concert while they torch that shiat up in the background.  Everyone is invited.  Except hybrid owners, who instead get to do all the prep work for free.
 
2013-02-02 03:56:59 PM

JeffreyScott: This thread is full of win...  hypocrisy!

The "gas tax" is really a "road tax" imposed to raise funds to keep our bridges and roads in repair.  It is charged on a per gallon basis, so generally speaking, the more a person drives on the roads the more they have to pay.  Hybrid owners consume less gas so they pay less in road taxes than their gas consuming counterparts, even when they drive the same or even more.

During the past couple of years the more liberal people on this board have stated they didn't mind paying taxes to keep their bridges and roads in good order.  I think most would agree that hybrid owners tend to be liberal.

Now that they are asked to pay taxes to support bridges and roads they are crying foul.

Now, they have decided that taxes are unfair.  Instead they want their own version of corporate welfare, where someone else subsidizes them.
 

The rest of us simply want hybrid owners to pay your fair share!


1. Doesn't understand the definition of Hybrid(i.e they use gas).
2. Completely missed the part about abolishing the gas Tax.
 
2013-02-02 04:34:05 PM

Benjimin_Dover: So would we be in agreement that taxing something discourages that something?


The bicycle haters should just drop the bullshiat that they want bicyclists taxed to be 'fair' or any of the other excuses. They should just be honest and go for an outright ban, because that's what they want. They want bicycling taxed for the same reasons pot was taxed in the 1930s, to effectively ban it.

And if it is banned, I think I'll buy the biggest and slowest truck I can and drive it instead of bicycling.
 
2013-02-02 04:39:41 PM

Dinjiin: leadmetal: Government is not going to implement the system in such a way that it cannot be tracked back to a person's movements.

Probably depends a lot of the government.  Florida, yes.  Arizona, no.  A couple of lawsuits and some public initiatives would move a couple from the yes to no column.


leadmetal: it's the huge number of them that would need to be installed and maintained that makes them very expensive.

A lot of that would depend on the type of road you're tolling.  A London style congestion network would be very expensive.  Checking people who enter and leave a section of limited access road would be a lot less.  And you can push the cost of the vehicle transponders onto the driver.

But I can't see a transponder being more expensive than a secure GPS tracking device that calculates your mileage and records which jurisdiction owns the road you're on.


Arizona's government loves speed cameras. They love that old coot sheriff too. They will be on the most likely list to track movements. I know of no government that has or likely will put in such a comprehensive system without being able to track. They come up with ways to make it sound ok, but they still have the data and it comes down to 'trust them'. Problem is a few criminal court cases later we find out they are keeping it and using it.

Taxing by mile instead of fuel taxes requires extensive monitoring above and beyond London's. Every road will have to be monitored and the taxes sliced to the various government entities. Even side streets will need monitoring because once people figure out they aren't taxed they'll be driving through residential neighborhoods in mass.
 
2013-02-02 06:07:31 PM

PunGent: Most paved roads in this country that date back to the the 1800s, besides the interstates, were paved for bicycles.


Yeah, but that have been repaved how many dozen times since then?
 
2013-02-02 09:06:27 PM

leadmetal: Arizona's government loves speed cameras


Not really.  It was mostly Napolitano and DPS who pushed for the cameras.  The Republican legislature was looking to enact restrictions on the cameras within days of them going up, but most of that was put on hold when an angry motorist shot a camera operator.  By the time the legislature started pushing the issue again, Napolitano was heading to D.C. and Brewer, an opponent of the cameras, became acting governor.

Scottsdale has a fair number of cameras, but then they have two photo ticket companies within their jurisdiction.  Neighboring cities have a handful of red light cameras, but I haven't seen any speed cameras outside of Scottsdale in a while.
 
2013-02-02 09:22:24 PM

leadmetal: Benjimin_Dover: So would we be in agreement that taxing something discourages that something?

The bicycle haters should just drop the bullshiat that they want bicyclists taxed to be 'fair' or any of the other excuses. They should just be honest and go for an outright ban, because that's what they want. They want bicycling taxed for the same reasons pot was taxed in the 1930s, to effectively ban it.

And if it is banned, I think I'll buy the biggest and slowest truck I can and drive it instead of bicycling.


You can't tax something that has been banned. Just like cigarettes, the powerticians wan't their revenue fix. Don't expect bikes to be banned anytime soon.
 
2013-02-02 10:53:02 PM
Supes:I can't help but think he's singling out hybrids under the impression they're usually driven by liberals, and this is a way to lower taxes on his main supporters while alienating people who won't vote for him anyway. But then again I'm a skeptic like that.

I suppose it's possible, but unlikely.  In Virginia, incumbent governors cannot stand for reelection; they're limited to one term at a time.  He'd have to be shooting for another office (e.g. senator) and he'd need to have a broader appeal than he does, since both Virginia senators are Democratic.  (He's delusional if he thinks he has a chance in heck at the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.)
 
2013-02-03 08:56:23 PM

ha-ha-guy: Klom Dark: ha-ha-guy: Klom Dark: Put the tax onto commercial vehicles only

No good, that spikes food prices since it ups delivery costs of produce, meat, etc.  Those are items the government tries to keep inexpensive so everyone can afford to eat.  If you put the entire burden on commercial vehicles, that means we see an unpleasant amount of cost passed onto the consumer in areas we don't want it.

/although I do like the idea of taxing courier style companies (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc) more.
//one really nasty tax rate for every vehicle in their fleet that fails to meet specific MPG requirements and a much less nasty tax rate for those that do

If we put the entire burden on the commercial vehicles, then the noncommercial citizens will have more available cash too pay the slightly higher food prices. Taxes were originally a way for the government to share in the profits of the commercial trade, and life was much better then and we should return to it.

// phone is going dead, but will definitely be back to this discussion once i fed some juice into it.

While I don't disagree about the government getting a cut of commercial trade, the big issue the profit from that commercial trade occurs in multiple places as the good passes through the system.  Everyone is involved in that system uses the roads in a direct or indirect manner.  With regard to the indirect manner, I am more likely to speculate on American milk and future milk futures because I know the milk can safely move from the dairy to the store whereas milk in Angola could end up stranded who knows where due to their shiatty infrastructure.  So my speculation will increase the per unit cost of milk.  In turn the price of milk goes up as it moves down the line or people who handle the milk later take a smaller profit (or possible loss).  So even though I'll never actually move a drop of that milk, I'm benefiting from the fact America has established public infrastructure.  You could argue anyone who does business ...



What's this about milk in Angola and what's it got to do with US infrastructure? I can't quite follow you, sorry. (Not meaning to sound dicky, just you threw me completely)
 
Displayed 238 of 238 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report