Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:30 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,756,288 times
Reputation: 8808

Advertisements

So it averages out, since each state gets roughly the same passenger vehicular traffic as neighboring states. (Trucks are another matter, and many states has means of equalizing that impact.)

The point remains that there is no practicable way to for a state to assess the costs of highway use by mileage driven in that one specific state, either on vehicles from others states, or even on vehicles registered in that state. The gasoline tax remains the best means of simulating that ideal, and its supremacy in that regard is endangered by the ascendancy of hybrid and electric vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,296,278 times
Reputation: 9270
Because the primary purpose of gasoline taxes is to pay for roads, hybrid and electric car owners are under-taxed since they use the roads just like gasoline vehicles.

I oppose tracking devices in cars. I am not interested in additional complexity to the vehicle nor am I interested in the government having ability to track where I might drive. Any taxation based on the data provided by a tracking device will also be subject to tampering. I assume it would take only a day or so for someone to figure out how to hack a tracking device.

I think hybrids should just face a surcharge of some kind - possibly associated with the capacity of the battery itself.

Unlike bUU above, I do not think buyers of hybrids (etc.) need any reward from the government. Saving fuel is a reward by itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:32 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,286,970 times
Reputation: 17867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
The government has already shown it cannot be trusted with tracking info
Frank the way this has been proposed is through GPS and I wouldn't support that. Not really practical for older cars anyway. They already record the mileage for yearly inspections, you would base it on that. Perhaps an estimated quarterly bill so someone isn't stuck with a huge bill at the end of the year, all taxes must be paid up to date on the vehicle when it's sold etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:36 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,286,970 times
Reputation: 17867
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post

The point remains that there is no practicable way to for a state to assess the costs of highway use by mileage driven in that one specific state, either on vehicles from others states, or even on vehicles registered in that state.
I don't think any system other than GPS could be fair but we should not go down that road.

How are you going to fairly assess this on hybrid? All the proposals I have seen are flat taxes far below what a gasoline car is paying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:37 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,756,288 times
Reputation: 8808
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Unlike bUU above, I do not think buyers of hybrids (etc.) need any reward from the government. Saving fuel is a reward by itself.
The fuel savings doesn't break-even even after 100,000 miles, given nominal parameters and even the maximum tax incentive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I don't think any system other than GPS could be fair but we should not go down that road.
So we have to do the best we can within the parameters of the valid alternatives. That's part of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,193 posts, read 10,787,939 times
Reputation: 9890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Well they get a $7500 gubbement subsidy when purchasing a new one.
Have to take some of it back to pay for living in this a free society of ours.
That subsidy is the first thing that should be removed. There is absolutely no logical reason to have a subsidy on purchasing a vehicle of any kind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:47 AM
 
11,413 posts, read 7,878,484 times
Reputation: 21928
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The fuel savings doesn't break-even even after 100,000 miles, given nominal parameters and even the maximum tax incentive.
Interesting calculator, but not relevant when discussing a tax on hybrids. Just because hybrids have a poor break even point doesn't mean their owners should be excused from paying for their road usage. Using that logic, anyone owning a Bentley should pay zero road taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,846 posts, read 41,209,489 times
Reputation: 62376
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The ideal arrangement would be to tax based on miles traveled,
Yeah, urbanites are all for that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,296,278 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The fuel savings doesn't break-even even after 100,000 miles, given nominal parameters and even the maximum tax incentive.
I understand that. The government should not be distorting the economics of non-gasoline powered vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:54 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,756,288 times
Reputation: 8808
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Interesting calculator, but not relevant when discussing a tax on hybrids. Just because hybrids have a poor break even point doesn't mean their owners should be excused from paying for their road usage.
I didn't say they should. You should go back and reread what I wrote, because you've not understood it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
I understand that. The government should not be distorting the economics of non-gasoline powered vehicles.
That is your preference. It is only your preference. People who care about what kind of world we're leaving their grandchildren and great-grandchildren disagree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top