Proposed tax on fuel efficient vehicles?

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by pete c

...
There is one problem with that. What happens when the "best possible choice for all concerned" conflicts with your choice?...

I think - - -

Your needs or interests would count heavily in that judgement, as would your family's and to a degree those of whatever groups you are affiliated with - maybe your work or your country or whatever.

If you only consider one of those entities you get a lopsided decision. You can't please all most of the time, but we do what we can. Anyone can consider it from where they sit, their and their family's needs, etc. So everyone will not make the same decision but will usually find whats best for them and those they are connected with.

[jakobnev]

Originally Posted by CAPTAIN CHAOS

Spoken like someone who’s never truly struggled financially.

Oh shut up! (There is a reson i have learned to squeeze out every drop of blood from every penny!)

The choices for a 40mpg vehicle that runs, drives, has room for a family, are dirt cheap and doesn’t need worked on are few indeed.

A single mother who had triplets by immaculate conception would need a car with.. (wait for it..) four seats! (All your examples basically listed three kids.) Almost every car here has more seats and gets better mileage than that.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by brucepick

If we people were basically bad, we would call evil "good" and would admire it. But even those who think people are basically bad and selfish - say bad is a bad thing.

I think the first part is an interesting point, but what do those others consider to be selfish or bad say about their actions?

What about my math bully with five kids? What about the female Soldier back in Germany that said that it was not her fault that she got pregnant twice in a row?

[t vago]

Everyone - everyone - looks out for their own self-interest, first and foremost. That's human nature. To claim otherwise is to engage in deception - sometimes, it takes the form of self-deception, but deception nonetheless.

You'd think that having over 100 million people murdered under 20th century regimes that claim otherwise, would put the lie to the idea that people would ignore their own self-interest and act only for the greater good. Apparently, that isn't enough. "We'll do it right, this time! Honest!"

[orangustang]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

The governor of VA proposed elimination of the state gas tax and a raise in the sales tax from 5 cents to 5.8 cents. Sounds like one less tax and another slightly higher. I do like the idea of one less tax, but then there is still the Federal gas tax.

regards
Mech

Similar to the Oregon situation, Bobby Mac also proposed raising the registration fee for hybrids by $100 and non-hybrids by $25. Personally, I think hybrids aren't as great as their owners seem to think they are, but I don't think they should be penalized for it.


VA Gov. to Increase Fees on Hybrid Cars, Eliminate State Gas Tax

[niky]

So, why charge more om the reg if NOBODY pays gas tax? That's simply penalizing someone for buying an economical car rather than evening out tax contributions.

[freebeard]

Since road wear is tied to weight rather than fuel efficiency; put the tax on *tires*?

[XYZ]

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” -Colbert

(That's a quote of Jean Baptiste Colbert, not Stephen Colbert...)

[niky]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Since road wear is tied to weight rather than fuel efficiency; put the tax on *tires*?

Like I said in this thread or another, you'd have to adjust for the tires' useable lifespan... trucks and SUVs often have tires that last past 100k, while cars tires usually degrade before that.

After thinking about it a bit more... that might simply be a disincentive for people to buy either long-lasting tires (which are good from a fuel economy and wastage standpoint) or grippy tires (which are good from a safety standpoint) depending on how the tax is calculated.

Which leads us back to simply taxing mles on the road, which is still the most fair way of doing it.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by niky

Like I said in this thread or another, you'd have to adjust for the tires' useable lifespan... trucks and SUVs often have tires that last past 100k, while cars tires usually degrade before that.

After thinking about it a bit more... that might simply be a disincentive for people to buy either long-lasting tires (which are good from a fuel economy and wastage standpoint) or grippy tires (which are good from a safety standpoint) depending on how the tax is calculated.

Which leads us back to simply taxing mles on the road, which is still the most fair way of doing it.

You are absolutely right. Now IF the only tax were that of how much we drove (or used the road), that would be fine. But the miles we drive is already registered on our odometers and duly recorded when our cars are subject to yearly inspection (with a the mandatory inspection fee levied by the state) and registered (with another mandatory fee levied by the state). Then our vehicles (subject to mandatory liability insurance regulation, also imposed by the state) also collects from us according to how many miles we have driven (as compared to the data collected by the state in inspection and registration records). And then there is also the hidden tax levied on gasoline supposedly collected for road usage or road maintenance, already included in the price of fuel at the pump.

Let's try this: every time you open the door to your vehicle and sit in the driver's seat let's mandate that there will be a required sensor in the vehicle that records your posterior and sends a signal out for you to be taxed by government. Even if your are making love while parked and sitting in the driver's seat you need to pay up. Let's make sure this new tax is in addition to all those other vehicular taxes you already pay.

I'm sure some here will think this to be a good idea and support it. (Perhaps I should not have suggested this, as it might be taken seriously and sent to the administration to be the next thing the government imposes upon us.)