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  
•       •       •

5915 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report