Proposed tax on fuel efficient vehicles?
 

Time to start using the <BLINK>-tag on the search function. :rolleyes:

I was wondering when reduced overall fuel consumption would finally provoke a response by government. Oy.

Heavier cars cause more road deterioration than lighter ones. I say, rather than multiply vehicle weight by miles driven to determine a tax amount, just let the cents-per-gallon taxes continue.

There has to be an up side to conserving fuel - that last thing our government (which is us, actually) should do is penalize fuel conservation!

653 comments on Slashdot.

Out-of-state travel?

axle weight?

toll roads???

SALES TAX??!?

It's unbelievable how they only care about taxes instead of consider the benefits from a lower dependence on foreign energy sources.

Those Americans who hate taxes fully believe that government can do almost nothing efficiently. They think those responsibilities should all be taken care of by the "private sector" instead. So the benefits of paying taxes are invisible to those people.

Um, don't count me among them. I'm proud to pay taxes.

The IRS has 106,000 employees and has a budget of $12.5 trillion. You don't think that can be improved?

I fail to see the problem.

No, seriously. I was stationed in CT for a while, and while I was there, they charged me an annual property tax on my car. Far heftier than $100, too. And, it was a traditional gasoline engine'd car!

If they did, they would be richer than the rest of the world. :D

IRS FY 2012 Budget Proposal Summary

The IRS budget is around 13.3 billion. Collections (gross) are around 2.3 trillion per annum.

The cost of collection, thus, is potentially less than 1 percent of the total tax revenue.

Figure about 6 billion of that is for standard wages, then about 7 billion for operations.

I don't have statistics for current taxpayers, but that's approximately 1,500 tax returns for every employee... and not all 106,000 of those people will be doing paperwork. Many will be doing legwork, collections, internal audit, legal work, investigation, miscellaneous office work, etcetera... so the ratio of accolunts to accountants is likely much higher, around 3,000 or 5,000 to 1.

Hey... making money costs money. :D

I stand corrected. I confused a comma and a period.

It sounded high...

To be honest, it would be fantastic if they did have that much money... :D

Of course, as to what the US Government actually does with the 2.3 trillion it collects... :confused:

It's actually a subtle problem. With a fixed fuel tax rate, as the proportions change, you go from rewarding the early adopters to penalizing the poor. But additional taxes on fuel efficiency brings in transponders in all the new vehicles, because it would be un-Constitutional to collect taxes on out-of-state travel.

While I agree taxes are necessary and proper; Oregonians won't accept a state sales tax unless the income tax is reduced first, and that's not going to happen.

Wouldn't a federal tax be Constitutional for all travel within the country? Would people complain about travel to Canada and Mexico? :)

Within reason.

When I see people using their welfare cards to buy cancer causing cigarettes, alcohol or other non necessities, it gets to me. Don't get me started on corporate welfare and the banking industry bailouts. More than one person should have gone to prison for that:confused:

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL14.../405234066.jpg

Xist -- Different question. This is a state initiative.

I stand corrected.

Oregon, being a "progressive" state, hates rich old people. It is rich old people that drive the Volts and the Leafs, so Oregonians are left wondering why wealthy old Leaf owners should not pay any road taxes. The current system of funding road infrastructure with gasoline taxes is unsustainable. It is right for a necessary entity that is going insolvent to look for an equitable way to raise funds.

I see 2 ways to accomplish this:

The first is to levy a distance * weight tax. This appears to be a fair way to tax, but then what do we do about people with studded tires? Shouldn't they pay more tax?

The second is to just pay for infrastructure in the regular income tax. At first, this appears unfair because people that don't travel much end up paying taxes for an infrastructure they don't directly use very often. In reality, everyone benefits from a properly maintained infrastructure. Commerce depends on an efficient and safe means of travel, and that directly relates to the economy.

I'm in favor of the second method of funding since the method of collection is already in place. It reduces the overhead of having yet another source of taxation and regulation. Most all taxes should just be rolled up into a single state sales tax and a federal sales tax. All income taxes should be eliminated.

The upside to conserving fuel is already in place; it is conservation of money. No other hands need to artificially influence this incentive.

I wouldn't allow a sales tax unless income tax was eliminated altogether.

I used to be against sales tax, but income taxes are so inefficient. I should never have to "do taxes" or hire a CPA. Taxes should be "done" at the time something is purchased. This would free up millions of hours that would normally be wasted "doing taxes" and eliminate the thousands of pointless jobs held by CPAs and tax collectors. They could then be put to work doing something productive.

It's all about excuses for more taxes...

TIn addition to redpoint5's two options above, there's a third: have states increase their gasoline taxes. I would do that along with using income taxes to partially fund highway infrastructure.

Income tax - as redpoint5 says, we all benefit from the roads, so all should pay.

Increased fuel tax - the European method. Nothing wrong with raising the rate in the face of dropping consumption. There's nothing like $5 or $6 or more per gallon to get people to conserve. If you think $3.xx is your limit, you may have to choose between not using it or stealing it. Some say that's basically what we're doing at $3.xx/gallon because apparently the real cost is higher.

I'm modding for FE in preparation for those higher prices that may well arrive. Not just for today's prices.

Spend some time at the bottom of the food chain and tell me how much you still like this idea. :(

An extra $.50/gal (or whatever) is a drop in the bucket when your household income is $100g/yr +
At $30g/yr it becomes an issue of “do I fill up the car or buy groceries?” I know people right now that flirt with this issue on far too regular of a basis, even at $3-4/gal.

My point is, when the money left over at the end of the week is $0 something has to be neglected to make ends meet. Raising the gas tax will be a kick in the nuts to the people stuck on the bottom as buying a new, more efficient car is not even an option. If they can’t afford $10-20/wk more in gas they SURE AS HECK can’t afford a $400-500/month new car payment or even $100-200 for a modest used car (keep in mind the poor don’t have the means to make a big down payment or get good financing to keep the payment down).

In my mind, the idea that makes the most sense is a registration tax; to be paid at your yearly auto registration. The tax rate should be based on 2 things: vehicle year and EPA combined MPG rating. It should taper off as the vehicle age becomes greater so as to not hammer the poor-er that are buying 10-20yr old vehicles and should be outrageously high on brand new, gas sucking monstrosities. The people that “need” that new 13mpg Escalade for their status symbol in the subdivision should pay out the nose for it. The single mom driving the $1500 Chevy Astro van toting her kids around at 13mpg, shouldn’t.

Increasing fuel tax is just another way to take money out of our pockets and give us less control of our future.

I downloaded a spread sheet file a couple of years ago from the GAO. The department of homeland security alone bought 47 limosines. Guess it was money well spent. :)

For those who believe that the government is an all seeing all knowning God, look carefully at how they spend our money.

Well, the government is not one omniscient being, it is made of a couple of million people like you and me. Hopefully, for each person that is less efficient, there is someone more efficient, throwing the average.

Supposedly, pessimists claim they are realists.

When I was Active Duty, I usually seemed to be the only one working. I was in supply. Now I am in Military Intelligence, although we literally never do our job, everybody works--one lousy weekend a month.

As far as being MI, Been there done that, what is your MOS?

Was it not her own choice to have more kids than fit inside a 40mpg-car?

It's funny how things we third worlders consider ostentatious signs of wealth, such as a big, powerful, V6-powered "mini" van are markers of poverty in the land of V8s... :D

Here, if you can't afford high-priced gas, you don't drive. You take public transport or a motorbike.

And if you happen to have a lot of kids...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog900.jpg

Well, that beats carrying a baby on a bike.

Yes, in your arm.

It's made up of greedy people who only look at what benfits them and their interests, not people like you and me

I think for the time being, fuel taxes alone are the way to go. You use the road more through either heavier vehicles or more miles driven, you pay more. And it gives an incentive to drive more efficiently.

A few years down the road, when EVs become more prevalent, this will have to change. Then we should go to some sort of mileage charge as it is impractical to use a fuel tax on watt/hrs.

I have been to the far east and to central and south america. You are certainly right about the status of people in the US.

In Illinois you can get up to 53,000 dollars a year if you apply for it. Free. No need for a Social Security number. I have seen the web page published by Illinois.

I commute on my bicycle when the weather is decent. Welfare families pass my wife and I in their SUV's.

They are greedy, just like you and me. It is the human condition, unfortunately.

It would be nice if this were not the case, but, it is. It is why socialism is a nice theory, but it fails miserably when actually put to use. It is why government should be treated as a necessary evil and limited as much as possible and be kept as local as possible. The reason being that it is a little more difficult to steal from your neighbor than it is to steal from someone on the other side of the country.

A bunch of old dead white dudes a few centuries ago understood this perfectly. Too bad our current crop of politicians and today's braindead voters don't.

Well, I guess that is enough libertarian ranting for now. :D

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

Social Anarchism > Socialism

You can believe that people are basically selfish and inconsiderate of others, that is, basically bad.

Or you can believe that people are basically good and will strive to make the best possible choices for all concerned, depending on the situation. That's my own view.

Ok, I guess you could believe other things instead on that topic but I'm looking at those two extremes.

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. Duh.

Or do you think that YOU are the only good one and everyone else is bad??? I highly doubt that's the case.

"I'm good, I'm good, I'm as good as my neighbor" -- Bob Dylan’s Hezekiah Jones

People are a product of their society. If you move to a more just society there's a lot of momentum behind people being really screwed up. How do you get from here to there?

Inter-generational abuse and all that.

"“But you don’t understand”, says the white men’s preacher
“There’s a lot of good ways for a man to be wicked”.

And they hung Hezekiah as high as a pigeon..."

Sometimes, even when an average 4cyl engine is available for certain vehicles, they're still perceived as in an upper market segment...

I think that people in general are good, but we all have a tendency to look out for our interests before our neighbor's. And I think that is OK.

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

Nope. I don't pretend to believe that my "good" is any better than the next guy's. What I do believe is that when one has the ability through government to dictate good, bad **** has a habit of happening. The history books are chock full of examples.

pay the employees well but should an irs guy get more than a house painter, or a laborer, dont think so , and let them manage their own retirement account , pensions will ruin us, truth is gov;t workers are the most conservative, when they retire they all move to low tax states, LOL

I don't have a problem with what IRS accountants are paid. I do have a problem with the number of them or even the necessity of them.

And yes, retired pensioned folk sure as hell aren't gonna stay here in the good ole people's republic of ct when they can move south/west, have nicer weather and a much lower cost of living.

i don't have a problem with the concept of a pension. i do have a problem with pensions that are not self funded as are many gov. employee pensions where politicians have promised to pay at rates that simply make no actuarial sense.

Spoken like someone who’s never truly struggled financially. :rolleyes:

When you’re on the bottom you take what you can get for what meager amount you can beg, borrow or steal. I’ve been there, or close to it, and it’s a difficult situation that the “privileged” can’t even begin to understand. 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.

Also, the “choice” of number of kids isn’t as black and white as you would seem to believe.
My wife and I KNEW that we wanted 2 kids, and that was it, I even went as far as seeing a Dr. to ensure that there would be no more. Well, due to some unprecedented timing my wife got pregnant the week of my “procedure” because of a biological oddity that had never happened in her 18+ years of “womanhood”. :confused:
A guy I work with “chose” to have 1 kid but ended up with 3 because of an “unplanned miracle” consisting of twins.
My aunt had 3 girls and a husband to contribute to the well-being of their family. Well, the low-life decided one day that he didn’t like his situation and left. The bum doesn’t work, doesn’t pay any significant child support and left my aunt working every hour of the waking day to maintain her “poverty level” status. :mad:

Things aren’t always black and white. There are a LOT of circumstances that can REALLY throw a curve into the best laid plans of men.