View Single Post
Old 10-16-2017, 10:06 PM   #29 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 48
Thanks: 20
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by bluesight View Post
My 2003 Honda Insight hybrid (3cyl, 1L) averages 50MPG. A NON-hybrid Ford Fiesta SFE (3cyl, 1L) averages 35MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the Fiesta will use 286 gallons and the Insight, 200 gallons. The Fiesta owner will pay $88 in WI gas tax (at $0.309/gal), and, for the Insight, instead of paying "little to nothing", I'll pay $62. Seems like I avoided all of $26 in gas tax. But consider the owner of a new-technology, aluminum F150 pickup that averages 17MPG compared to the old-technology, non-aluminum F150 averaging 14MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the non-aluminum F150 will use 714 gallons, and the aluminum, 588 gallons. WI gas taxes for the non-aluminum version will be $221, and $182 for the aluminum, allowing the aluminum version owner to avoid $39 of gas tax. This is obvious, simple math. But under the hybrid tax legislation, I will be charged a $75 penalty for not paying my $26 "fair share", while F150 owners, and there are a lot of them, will be charged nothing for avoiding $39. Singling out hybrid technology by name for punitive taxation is legislatively picking winners and losers, as much as it would be to have a special tax for aluminum bodied vehicles. It is indefensible, unfair, and, eventually, unworkable.

The aluminum body F150 makes its efficiency gains by becoming lighter in weight.
That decreases wear on the road.

The F150 is also not using an energy source that circumnavigates the user tax on fuel.
2007 Silverado 1500 2wd flex fuel with active fuel management. 33" Nitto Terra Grappler tires. 2.5" motofab front end leveling kit.
  Reply With Quote