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.
So, to be clear, let the Republicans do what the Democrats do because of what the Democrats do...
User fees are always fair, if you are going to use infrastructure you should pay for it. Now if you want to make complaints it's too high perhaps we need to consider using some of these fees for mass transit and other things they weren't collected for.
Okay, but what if you and I drive the same distance, ostensibly doing the same amount of damage to the road, but you drive something with crummy mileage and I don't. Therefore you pay more for road maintanance than I do, even though we do the same amount of damage. How is that equitable, and why should I be punished because you buy more gas than I do.
Gas Tax = maintanance doesn't make much sense to me. But thank you for answering my question reasonably and not going non-linear about liberals like that other guy did.
I just want to say, I agree with your sentiments on the fact that differences in mileage of vehicles of the same weight can cause significantly disproportionate funding of road maintenance.
The question then becomes, what is the alternative?
If for instance we went with a "one-time fee"(such as a car tag). It assumes that everyone drives the same distance per year. Even though in reality, some people drive only a few hundred miles a year, while others drive 30,000 miles a year or more.
My sister drives about 35,000 miles a year. I drive maybe 1,000 miles a year. If our car tags cost the same amount, then per mile driven, I would pay 35 times more than she does. Since wealthy people tend to drive more than poorer people, then such a system would heavily subsidized the wealthy at the expense of the poor. And I am sure we can also agree, poor people tend to drive vehicles with worse MPG than wealthier people.
As for the $50 dollar fee. Part of the problem is also that electric vehicles are paying no tax at all for charging their vehicles at home.
Obviously the best solution for road maintenance would be a usage fee based on miles driven and vehicle weight. But how would you accomplish that in an efficient and non-invasive way?
Okay, but what if you and I drive the same distance, ostensibly doing the same amount of damage to the road, but you drive something with crummy mileage and I don't. Therefore you pay more for road maintanance than I do, even though we do the same amount of damage. How is that equitable, and why should I be punished because you buy more gas than I do.
You need to compare apples to apples and a hybrid gets much greater gas mileage than a similarly sized gasoline car. You should expect to pay the same as that car. Since we currently have no way to tax these vehicles the same you need something like this $50 to make up some of the difference.
I should expect to pay the same for every liter of gas I buy, regardless of what I do with it. Could be I'll just sit in the driveway running it for laughs, could be I'll actually drive somewhere. No one can tell how much driving I'll do based on my car's mileage. Which is why I don't think charging hybrid drivers more makes sense.
You're obviously not familiar with MPGs that cars get. 30MPG is not ridiculously low for a hybrid at all. It depends on which hybrid. It's ridiculously low for a prius, but the norm for many heavier hybrids. Most hybrid models are not compact cars.
I should expect to pay the same for every liter of gas I buy, regardless of what I do with it. Could be I'll just sit in the driveway running it for laughs, could be I'll actually drive somewhere. No one can tell how much driving I'll do based on my car's mileage. Which is why I don't think charging hybrid drivers more makes sense.
The $50 comes out to about 3000 miles if you were taxed on gasoline car getting 30MPG.
In any event your point is valid, they should be taxed per mile based on their weight. That way we can collect the proper amount of tax and it's going to be much more than $50 for most of them.
Okay, but what if you and I drive the same distance, ostensibly doing the same amount of damage to the road, but you drive something with crummy mileage and I don't. Therefore you pay more for road maintanance than I do, even though we do the same amount of damage. How is that equitable, and why should I be punished because you buy more gas than I do.
Gas Tax = maintanance doesn't make much sense to me. But thank you for answering my question reasonably and not going non-linear about liberals like that other guy did.
Gas tax is imperfect for paying for roads - but aren't all taxes imperfect?
I think if you you look at the full spectrum of vehicles on the road today, most low MPG vehicles are heavy. Because of their lower MPG, they use more fuel and pay more gasoline taxes. That's good.
A Prius has very high MPG, is not light, and is a clear example of a vehicle where the owner will underfund the maintenance of roads. Imposing a fee or tax on high MPG vehicles, especially those that don't use gasoline or diesel, is a at least a partial correction to a flawed taxation system in place today.
The change would raise the price at the pump by about 5 cents per gallon, said Gottlieb. The typical driver would pay about $27 a year more in gas taxes because of it, he said.
The tax increase would be bigger for diesel fuel, rising by about 10 cents a gallon. That's aimed at having semitrailers and other heavy vehicles pay more because they put more wear on roads, Gottlieb said. Owners of passenger vehicles that use diesel fuel would be able to claim a credit to offset some of the fuel taxes they would pay.
The annual vehicle registration fee would remain flat, at $75 a year. But those who drive hybrid and electric vehicles would have to pay an additional fee of $50 a year. That is meant to ensure those drivers pay their share for roads because they use less fuel and thus pay less in gas taxes, Gottlieb said.
The request is reasonable. Looks like some Republicans are beginning to admit the hybrids use less fuel.
But that goes against all Republican values. Selective taxation is what they accusse the left of doing and now they're doing it?
Seriously, Republican voters who are capable of thinking for themselves should be outraged by this blatant contradiction of values. But way too many are 'it's fair' when it isn't. Who cares if they pay less in gas taxes? Why should they be punished for doing something different?
User fees are always fair, if you are going to use infrastructure you should pay for it. Now if you want to make complaints it's too high perhaps we need to consider using some of these fees for mass transit and other things they weren't collected for.
I agree. But they already are. Income tax alone could easily pay for the roads and it's services. Adding a tax to electric cars just because they aren't buying gas is unfair.
And just to prove I'm not just fighting Republicans because I can, I think the gas tax is too high as well. But doing this to the hybrid cars will just discourage other people from buying them, which may be the intent, and that's not a good thing or within the states right to do.
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.
