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  
•       •       •

5914 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 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.
 
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