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.
Because it's more efficient than the non-hybrid equivalent. It produces less emissions and saves money at the pump. Those are the basics. We can't analyze everyone's reasons for purchasing their cars in this thread.
When tax is intended to pay for the road you are using then yes you are avoiding the tax.
People who have 401k's, have children, etc. are avoiding taxes and aren't paying their "fair share" either. And they are doing it on a much larger scale. Let's stop with these little offenders, and attack the bigger ones.
I would say it be a legitimate. Fee if every car that gets over 40 miles per gallon is charged.
Or better. Remove the relationship between the tax and gasoline. Relate it to the weight of the vehicle and the miles driven. This rule works no matter how the vehicle is fueled.
People who have 401k's, have children, etc. are avoiding taxes and aren't paying their "fair share" either. And they are doing it on a much larger scale. Let's stop with these little offenders, and attack the bigger ones.
People will pay taxes on those 401K's when they start drawing on them. Draw early and pay a huge tax penalty. That isn't a fair analogy.
A better analogy would be the ACA. Making people buy coverage they will never need, because the Fed mandated what every policy must cover.
or making EXPATs pay taxes when they are no longer in the country or making money in the new country of choice.
In this case Hybrid and electric vehicles still use our roads and should have to pay an equivalent users fee. I like your idea of taxing weight and miles driven. That would make it absolutely fair.
People will pay taxes on those 401K's when they start drawing on them. Draw early and pay a huge tax penalty. That isn't a fair analogy.
A better analogy would be the ACA. Making people buy coverage they will never need, because the Fed mandated what every policy must cover.
or making EXPATs pay taxes when they are no longer in the country or making money in the new country of choice.
In this case Hybrid and electric vehicles still use our roads and should have to pay an equivalent users fee. I like your idea of taxing weight and miles driven. That would make it absolutely fair.
If weight and miles driven were taxed fairly (meaning a tax that actually reflected the cost of wear and tear on the roads) the trucking industry would be out of business within 24 hours and buses would cease to operate altogether as they're responsible for the overwhelming majority of road wear and tear due to the weight of those vehicles.
Or better. Remove the relationship between the tax and gasoline. Relate it to the weight of the vehicle and the miles driven. This rule works no matter how the vehicle is fueled.
The question is, how are you going to do that?
That suggestion has been given multiple times in this thread. But, it doesn't really seem possible.
People imagine it like you could just go into the DMV every year, they could check your mileage, then bill you for how many miles you drove.
The problem is, odometer readings are too easily tampered with. Vehicle weight can vary significantly from stock(and the DMV's aren't going to have a vehicle scale).
You would basically need some kind of GPS tracking device which interfaces directly with your car, and is effectively tamper-proof. But that would be expensive, and the government would be able to track every move you made with your car.
If weight and miles driven were taxed fairly (meaning a tax that actually reflected the cost of wear and tear on the roads) the trucking industry would be out of business within 24 hours and buses would cease to operate altogether as they're responsible for the overwhelming majority of road wear and tear due to the weight of those vehicles.
Sounds good to me. I hate trucks, and every time I turn around the trucking industry is demanding some kind of special privilege.
In fact, I remember clearly hearing the trucking industry complaining when there was some chatter about raising the federal fuel excise tax(which hasn't been raised since 1993).
Their argument was "Because trucks move most consumer goods in this country, if you raise taxes on trucks, you are raising taxes on people. Thus, it is pointless to raise the taxes on trucks, you might as well just raise taxes on people".
I remember thinking that argument was terrible. Because at the time, I was working for BNSF railroad. In my view, if truckers had to pay "their fair share" for the roads. It would become so expensive to move pretty much anything by truck, and most goods would be shipped by railroad. And BTW, a freight train is about four times more energy efficient than a semi truck.
People will pay taxes on those 401K's when they start drawing on them. Draw early and pay a huge tax penalty. That isn't a fair analogy.
A better analogy would be the ACA. Making people buy coverage they will never need, because the Fed mandated what every policy must cover.
or making EXPATs pay taxes when they are no longer in the country or making money in the new country of choice.
In this case Hybrid and electric vehicles still use our roads and should have to pay an equivalent users fee. I like your idea of taxing weight and miles driven. That would make it absolutely fair.
401k is a great analogy. People use it as a vehicle to avoid taxes by sheltering their earnings. That's the perfect tax avoidance.
If weight and miles driven were taxed fairly (meaning a tax that actually reflected the cost of wear and tear on the roads) the trucking industry would be out of business within 24 hours and buses would cease to operate altogether as they're responsible for the overwhelming majority of road wear and tear due to the weight of those vehicles.
Deregulating the trucking industry destroyed the rail industry in this country. Now we have a less efficient system that uses a great deal more fuel to do virtually the same job.
Or better. Remove the relationship between the tax and gasoline. Relate it to the weight of the vehicle and the miles driven. This rule works no matter how the vehicle is fueled.
Agree and I stated the exact same thing in my original post in this topic. Sans that type of tax w still need to tax these vehicles in some manner because there use will only increase.
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-28-2014 at 08:07 PM..
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.
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.
