Trying to use less gas? There's a tax for that.

[Borg]

Sooo, I got my car tax bill from the state of Virginia Monday. The state legislature recently changed the tax code to tax all hybrid cars an additional $64 because they "don't use enough gas" that the state can tax. Similar bills are pending in other states as well.

OK, they need more revenue. While I understand in principle what they're trying to accomplish, hybrid owners now pay more than any other vehicle type (assuming a normal average of 12,000 miles per year). To make things even dumber, the state also dropped the previous gas tax from 17.5 cents to 11.5 cents per gallon so that many non-hybrid cars now pay less than what the hybids were paying previously. A hybrid owner using 240 gallons of gas in a year, now pays more in taxes than a 15 MPG truck that uses 800 gallons.

<End rant>

 

[phyzguy]

Whoa, this is crazy! The last thing we want to do is encourage fossil fuel consumption. Sounds like it's time to move out of Virginia!

 

[edward]

The tax supposedly goes for road maintenance. They need to charge the heavier vehicles more.

Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars (p.23 of study, p.36 of PDF).

http://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/

Since they can't get that kind of money out of the trucking industry they take it from the little guy.

 

[russ_watters]

The only problem I see with the tax is that it is one size fits all: a Prius owner is penalized while a Volt owner makes out.

 

[phinds]

You are expecting logic/reason/sanity from a legislative body? Really?

 

[russ_watters]

The tax supposedly goes for road maintenance. They need to charge the heavier vehicles more.

http://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/

Since they can't get that kind of money out of the trucking industry they take it from the little guy.

They do charge heavier vehicles more.

You claim trucks don't pay enough, but you didn't say how much they pay!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Reminds be how my electric company raises rates when they don't make enough money when people conserve electricity.

 

[russ_watters]

Reminds be how my electric company raises rates when they don't make enough money when people conserve electricity.

Er, well I'm not sure that's true, but electric companies are the only ones I know of who are required to pay their customers to use less of their product!

 

[Borg]

You are expecting logic/reason/sanity from a legislative body? Really?

No. Just ranting. Some legislators have said that they will try to repeal it but, I'm not holding my breath.

I think that all of the tax bills for the year go out at the same time so I don't think that I'm the only one who will notice this week. Maybe if enough people get upset, they'll change their minds. I submitted a suggestion for a news story to a local TV station. I would love to see that get run.

 

[SteamKing]

If you think this is bad, wait until the government starts taxing you by the miles you drive.

 

[edward]

They do charge heavier vehicles more.

You claim trucks don't pay enough, but you didn't say how much they pay!

And you didn't say how much more heavier trucks pay?? Pay for what? registration fees or fuel tax? As far as fuel tax heavy trucks pay the same per gallon as a Volkswagen TDI.

And you apparently ignored this quote from the link I provided.

Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars

http://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/

 

[Borg]

I was just referring to personal vehicles. Yes, 18 wheelers tear up the road significantly and are taxed higher for it.

 

[russ_watters]

And you didn't say how much more heavier trucks pay?? Pay for what? registration fees or fuel tax? As far as fuel tax heavy trucks pay the same per gallon as a Volkswagen TDI.

1. Your claim, your responsibility, and the flaw is pretty obvious, so if you want to claim they aren't taxed enough or equally to cars, you need to prove it:
2. Trucks get lower fuel economy than a VW TDI. How much, I don't know, but clearly they use more fuel and therefore get taxed more for each mile: your road damage number is per mile, not per gallon or dollar.
3. Trucks pay higher tolls than cars do, based on weight.

And you apparently ignored this quote from the link I provided.

I didn't ignore it, that's the number you need to normalize against cost. Stated succinctly, what I want to know (what you need to prove) is what that number drops to when corrected for how much more trucks pay than cars. For example, if a truck pays 100x what a car pays, then the damage is 9.6x what a car does per $$$ paid in road tax. Then we can discuss whether that number (whatever it is) is reasonable.

 

[russ_watters]

I was just referring to personal vehicles.

Right, so like I said, the issue is basically just a simplistic approach a complicated question. You happened - by dumb luck - to get the short end of the stick on that simplistic approach. But while I get the bellyaching, trying to set that aside and find a sensible approach to the problem will reveal just how inherently unsolvable it is:

We could base the personal vehicle tax rates on vehicle weight and miles driven, requiring yearly inspections and tax paid at the time of the inspection. That would eliminate this issue and to me would be "fair". But not very many people, it would seem, share my concept of "fair":

We've had a number of threads here where people have, for example, argued that the rich should pay the lions share of road taxes because even when a non-rich person is driving, the rich get most of the benefit of that driving. Not sure how we would calculate that. Eliminate road taxes and pay for roads just with income taxes maybe?

Maybe road maintenance isn't the only thing at stake with road taxes. Maybe the government wants to tax for the purpose of behavioral modification. Then, taxing hybrid owners less for the same amount of driving would make sense.

These alternatives are based on different opinions on the purpose and nature of both taxation in particular and government in general. They are not reconcilable.

 

[lisab]

If you think this is bad, wait until the government starts taxing you by the miles you drive.

That's actually very reasonable, IMO - let the citizens who use it most pay more for it. But there is no good way to implement a per-mile tax. The best they can do is a gas tax, but they aren't taxing fuel directly - they're taxing road use indirectly.

 

[OmCheeto]

Whoa, this is crazy! The last thing we want to do is encourage fossil fuel consumption.

I agree.

btw, what's the ratio of hybrids to non-hybrids, at the moment?

Sounds like it's time to move out of Virginia!

It's going on everywhere. We're all stuck here on "the Earth". Moving out of Virginia is the least of anyone's problem, IMHO.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Right, so like I said, the issue is basically just a simplistic approach a complicated question.

Taxes are, by nature, a pretty blunt instrument.

We could base the personal vehicle tax rates on vehicle weight and miles driven, requiring yearly inspections and tax paid at the time of the inspection. That would eliminate this issue and to me would be "fair".

In NZ that has applied to personal diesel vehicles but only by accident.
The main trouble, besides general unpopularity meaning that the govt who impliments it gets voted out next election (and elections are every 3 years here), is just the number of people that would involve collecting the tax from.

It is getting more feasible as technology improves though - we could put an automatic toll booth on every corner and the registered car owner gets a road-use bill in the mail. In future, vehicles may be required to upload their mileage, and whatever, to a central database after each trip. (There was an SF show recently in which "carbon credits" - ones quota of emmissions - had replaced the dollar as currency.)

Note: if the road-user tax is at the pump, then don't hybrid owners already pay less of the tax in proportion to the miles they drive on electricity alone.
The behaviour modification role of tax is well to be noted - in NZ part of the pump tax is an emmissions tax.

But not very many people, it would seem, share my concept of "fair"

But everyone who is reasonable agrees with me!

 

[russ_watters]

That's actually very reasonable, IMO - let the citizens who use it most pay more for it. But there is no good way to implement a per-mile tax. The best they can do is a gas tax, but they aren't taxing fuel directly - they're taxing road use indirectly.

Agreed, though for states like PA where you have an annual inspection, it could be done without too much trouble. Not all states have inspections though, and that doesn't differentiate between state and federal driving.

 

[edward]

1. Your claim, your responsibility, and the flaw is pretty obvious, so if you want to claim they aren't taxed enough or equally to cars, you need to prove it:
2. Trucks get lower fuel economy than a VW TDI. How much, I don't know, but clearly they use more fuel and therefore get taxed more for each mile: your road damage number is per mile, not per gallon or dollar.
3. Trucks pay higher tolls than cars do, based on weight.

I didn't ignore it, that's the number you need to normalize against cost. Stated succinctly, what I want to know (what you need to prove) is what that number drops to when corrected for how much more trucks pay than cars. For example, if a truck pays 100x what a car pays, then the damage is 9.6x what a car does per $$$ paid in road tax. Then we can discuss whether that number (whatever it is) is reasonable.

I don't need to prove anything. The fuel tax is really the topic here. That is where the states get the money to build and repair roads. With the fuel tax rate for state purposes being determined by the individual states, what you want to discuss is futile.

It is common knowledge that heavy trucks do more damage to the roads than they pay for in fuel taxes.

Any quantification (what you want me to do) would change the next time anyone of the states changed the fuel tax rate as was mentioned in the OP. I see you used the term inherently unsolvable.

 

[SteamKing]

That's actually very reasonable, IMO - let the citizens who use it most pay more for it. But there is no good way to implement a per-mile tax. The best they can do is a gas tax, but they aren't taxing fuel directly - they're taxing road use indirectly.

And of course, you will keep a detailed log of the miles you drive and be able to show it on demand to any and all who wish to see it. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind if your friendly govt. agency installed a device in your car which kept detailed records of your movements in the vehicle, so you won't lose any mileage logs or even have to worry about keeping them in the first place.

And to think, people once got bent out of shape because the NSA or the FBI, or the IRS, or even the local cop shop might be tracking them!

 

[russ_watters]

I don't need to prove anything. The fuel tax is really the topic here.

I know the fuel tax is the topic: you didn't make any attempt to quantify what a truck pays vs what a car pays when saying a truck doesn't pay enough. You claimed that trucks don't pay enough fuel tax, so you need to cite how much fuel tax trucks pay in order to show that!

Instead, you said trucks don't pay enough fuel tax, then showed that trucks do more damage to roads than cars. They are separate issues, but can be merged -- if you have data for both.

It is common knowledge that heavy trucks do more damage to the roads than they pay for in fuel taxes.

It isn't common knowledge to me, so tell me how much and cite your source. Moreover, even if we were to agree that it was more, I would still want to know how much. You claimed 9600x, for half of the equation. So complete the analysis and show how much it really is.

Any quantification (what you want me to do) would change the next time anyone of the states changed the fuel tax rate as was mentioned in the OP.

Yes, and it would be different from state to state. So pick a state and start at now and show the magnitude of the discrepancy you are claiming. You came about the 9600x very easily. I'm not going to let you off the hook unless you finish the calculation or retract the claim.

Or, I'll let you out of this if you say you agree that the discrepancy is much, much less than 9600x.

 

[Borg]

We could base the personal vehicle tax rates on vehicle weight and miles driven, requiring yearly inspections and tax paid at the time of the inspection.

No problem here with that. As I've stated in the past, I'm not against paying my fair share of taxes.

Maybe road maintenance isn't the only thing at stake with road taxes. Maybe the government wants to tax for the purpose of behavioral modification. Then, taxing hybrid owners less for the same amount of driving would make sense.

I'm not sure what to make of the law. If they just added the hybrid fee, that would be more reasonable in terms of overall fairness because the hybrid taxes would be closer to the median for all vehicles. What I don't get is then lowering the tax at the pump and changing the equation such that hybrids are now the highest taxed vehicles w.r.t. a 12,000 mile average. That really comes across as trying to punish hybrid owners even though I will pay less with the decrease in the pump tax. Hard to say if that was intentional or just normal government stupidity.

I really feel sorry for people who own Ford Escape hybrid trucks. They only get about 30 MPG so they're really on the short end of it unless there's a truck waiver in the law that I haven't read about.

BTW, let's not lose sight of the fact that I still pay far less for gas than the owner of a truck. At $3.50/gal the 15MPG truck spends about $2800 to go 12,000 miles while a 50 MPG Prius spends around $850. Maybe the government thinks that extra two grand is burning a hole in my pocket.

 

[AlephZero]

It isn't common knowledge to me, so tell me how much and cite your source. Moreover, even if we were to agree that it was more, I would still want to know how much. You claimed 9600x, for half of the equation. So complete the analysis and show how much it really is.

A common criterion (based on experimental data) for road damage from each axle of a vehicle is the fourth power of axle weight. There is no problem with factors of 9600 or more in total damage between a large truck and a car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating will get you started for references.

 

[OmCheeto]

That's actually very reasonable, IMO - let the citizens who use it most pay more for it. But there is no good way to implement a per-mile tax. The best they can do is a gas tax, but they aren't taxing fuel directly - they're taxing road use indirectly.

If we didn't import $300,000,000,000^[1] worth of crude oil a year, it would be reasonable.
If everyone were driving plug in hybrid vehicles, it would be reasonable.

...$170 billion in capital investment would be needed on an annual basis to significantly improve conditions and performance. ^[2]

Now those $170 billion would be recycled here, in the US.
Those $300 billion are currently, not.

Disincentivizing fuel savings is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of in my entire life.

[1] 7,730,000 barrels a day * $106 per barrel * 365.25 [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/measuring-how-many-days-are-in-a-year/']days in a year[/URL] = $300,000,000,000
[2] http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/roads/

 

[Borg]

I submitted a suggestion for a news story to a local TV station. I would love to see that get run.

Well that was quick. They sent me an email this morning asking if I would like to do an interview for the story. Oh dear.

 

[jim hardy]

...
I really feel sorry for people who own Ford Escape hybrid trucks. They only get about 30 MPG so they're really on the short end of it unless there's a truck waiver in the law that I haven't read about.

BTW, let's not lose sight of the fact that I still pay far less for gas than the owner of a truck. At $3.50/gal the 15MPG truck spends about $2800 to go 12,000 miles while a 50 MPG Prius spends around $850. Maybe the government thinks that extra two grand is burning a hole in my pocket.

Sometimes it pays to be stubborn

my 1983 Ford Ranger diesel truck still gets 35mpg (by careful measurement)
at $4.00/gal that's $1371 for 12,000 miles
Deduct from that annual license fees - permanent antique tag !

No computer, no check engine light, no problem .

Best wishes for your interview !

 

[Borg]

Sometimes it pays to be stubborn

my 1983 Ford Ranger diesel truck still gets 35mpg (by careful measurement)
at $4.00/gal that's $1371 for 12,000 miles
Deduct from that annual license fees - permanent antique tag !

No computer, no check engine light, no problem .

Best wishes for your interview !

Thanks, Jim. The interview went fine. They spent 40 minutes at the house and I was on for about 20 seconds saying hybrid owners are being punished and "It's not fair". I'm not surprised by how they presented me but, at least they got the main point of how the tax is hitting hybrid owners. If it gets people pinging the legislators, I'll have done my part.

Still, I'm not holding my breath that it will get repealed since one link on the news story states that hybrids only make up 1.3 percent of cars in Virginia. Like all politics, it's about appearances and percentages. The politicians have appeared to do something about gas taxes and they are unlikely to concern themselves with the 1.3% it affects - especially since they gave everyone else a 34% tax cut.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks, Jim. The interview went fine. They spent 40 minutes at the house and I was on for about 20 seconds saying hybrid owners are being punished and "It's not fair". I'm not surprised by how they presented me but, at least they got the main point of how the tax is hitting hybrid owners. If it gets people pinging the legislators, I'll have done my part.

Still, I'm not holding my breath that it will get repealed since one link on the news story states that hybrids only make up 1.3 percent of cars in Virginia. Like all politics, it's about appearances and percentages. The politicians have appeared to do something about gas taxes and they are unlikely to concern themselves with 1.3% it affects - especially since they gave everyone else a 34% tax cut.

Argh...

Talk about "unmaintainable code"...

 

[BobG]

And of course, you will keep a detailed log of the miles you drive and be able to show it on demand to any and all who wish to see it. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind if your friendly govt. agency installed a device in your car which kept detailed records of your movements in the vehicle, so you won't lose any mileage logs or even have to worry about keeping them in the first place.

And to think, people once got bent out of shape because the NSA or the FBI, or the IRS, or even the local cop shop might be tracking them!

Or they could just look at your odometer come inspection time and log the number of miles on your inspection paperwork. Then next year, they could compare your odometer reading to your previous year's paperwork. In other words, those devices you're worried about have been routinely installed since decades ago.

I wonder how they would handle vehicles without working odometers, though. If the vehicle is old and you can estimate your speed from the tachometer (a non-working odometer means a non-working speedometer, as well), then why fix the odometer? Would they handle it the same way parking lots do for lost parking stubs? Just charge you a high enough rate that you'd want to fix your odometer?

You could still cheat the system by disconnecting the odometer for only part of the year. Given that a reputable mechanic probably wouldn't disconnect the odometer for you (I know there's laws against modifying the odometer value, but I'm not sure about disconnecting it), I wouldn't imagine odometer fraud would be a huge problem unless the taxes were high enough to encourage large numbers of people to take their vehicle to non-reputable mechanics or learn to do it themselves.

I've only seen non-working odometers on older analog odometers (in fact, the odometer on my old Jeep Cherokee died at around 160,000 miles and it just didn't seem worth it to fix it on a car I never intended to resale), but I'd assume the same principles apply to the newer digital odometers?