HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Michigan GOP targets fuel...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:48 PM

 

Michigan GOP targets fuel-efficient vehicles for surcharges

...

A spokeswoman for state Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, says Snyder's proposals to raise the fuel tax by 14 cents a gallon and hike vehicle registration fees by 60% are "nonstarters" with Republicans who hold a 26-11 majority in the state Senate.

But Richardville adds that he and his GOP colleagues might consider some kind of surcharge on motorists who avoid the tax on gasoline by driving vehicles that use less of it.

"We might talk about (higher) registration fees for those kinds of cars out there that don't use gasoline or use very little gasoline," the Senate majority leader told the Michigan Information and Research Service last week. "They are probably not paying their fare share."

...

http://www.freep.com/article/20130217/COL04/302170136/Editorial-Michigan-GOP-targets-fuel-efficient-vehicles

46 replies, 1862 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Michigan GOP targets fuel-efficient vehicles for surcharges (Original post)
michigandem58 Feb 2013 OP
longship Feb 2013 #1
Squinch Feb 2013 #2
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #3
Scuba Feb 2013 #6
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #7
Scuba Feb 2013 #9
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #12
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #20
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #39
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #40
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #41
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #42
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #44
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #45
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #46
pscot Feb 2013 #4
sakabatou Feb 2013 #5
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #8
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #11
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #14
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #19
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #21
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #22
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #23
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #24
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #25
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #10
tritsofme Feb 2013 #13
etherealtruth Feb 2013 #15
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #18
theKed Feb 2013 #16
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #17
bluestate10 Feb 2013 #27
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #28
Purveyor Feb 2013 #26
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #29
Purveyor Feb 2013 #30
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #31
Purveyor Feb 2013 #34
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #36
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #35
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #33
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #38
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #32
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #37
IDemo Feb 2013 #43

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:59 PM

1. "They are probably not paying their fare [sic] share."

Is this a typo? Or is it a Freudian slip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:01 PM

2. Stupidest. Idea. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:05 PM

3. Then we the people should demand a refund for non-road use of gasoline.

I don't see my generator, weed whacker, or lawn mower going for any road trips. Why do I pay road tax on them?


Two can play at this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:32 PM

6. Don't forget my snowblower!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:35 PM

7. Oh! How could I forget the snow blower?

Oh yeah, it broke on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:39 PM

9. They use less gas when they don't run.

Quieter too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:46 PM

12. I don't know about quieter...

I had a good whine going as I dug out by hand from my 30 inches of snow last weekend. I just got the new parts I needed, so I'm sure that I won't get anymore snow this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:53 PM

20. It's interesting they have off-road Diesel....

(which is dyed red, BTW for easy identification by Law Enforcement and DOT) but no off-road gasoline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:49 PM

39. The article clearly states that a raise in gas taxes is out of the question so your generator

and weed whacker gas would cost the same.

Whack away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:58 PM

40. I was being facetious.

I can't stand the argument that you owe more money because you consume less gas. Saving money is the freaking point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:02 PM

41. Taxes will be raised anyway. Just because cars use less gas doesn't mean that the

roads need less funding. Where do you think the money will come from to maintain current funding levels? And you will still be saving money on gas because you'll be paying less (or none at all) of that portion that is profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:06 PM

42. I have no problem with general taxes, like income, funding roads.

I just find it reckless to tax cleaner and more fuel efficient cars more. We should be trying to get more people driving those, not punishing those who do.

My line on non-road use was having fun with their stupid justification of attacking smart drivers. How many miles per gallon does my weed wacker get? But it pays the road tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:49 PM

44. I think stricter regulation should drive more fuel efficient cars.

And I do think that some of the cost of vehicles should be borne by the user not spread to everyone. Just as users of mass transportation bear some of the cost.
Currently, gasoline taxes on personal use vehicles account for 40-45% of the costs to maintain the infrastructure. The rest does come out of the general fund.

And once the system is in place, you won't be paying the gas tax anymore (though, you should for all the environmental damage it causes.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:18 PM

45. The problem is that as people switch to cleaner cars the "use tax" becomes ineffective.

We already have states proposing to track cars by GPS for mileage based taxation because of the decrease in gasoline consumption. Now there's a privacy nightmare! I would rather the taxes shift to general fund as gasoline consumption goes down. Roads benefit everyone, whether by driving on them, or getting goods transported on them. I tend to dislike fees or sales type taxes as they hurt the poor since they aren't adjusted for income. A guy making 100k can pay a $200 registration bill far easier than a guy making $20k. And as the cheap cars start climbing in fuel economy, that will become a reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:33 AM

46. I believe that there is a scientist in Oregon that solved the privacy issue...

but I think user fees are appropriate up to a point. Personal vehicle use contributes to environmental degradation in many more ways than gasoline usage... from production, maintenance (both the infrastructure and the vehicle itself), to destruction. I have no problem with smokers and drinkers paying excise taxes to support treatment programs and public health costs.

In California (and maybe U.S. wide) we are charged a recycling fee on electronics. A user fee. In the county of San Francisco, we are charged 10 cents for every paper or plastic bag. A user fee.

And, I totally agree with your point about the negative impact on the poor but that injustice could be mitigated by a phase in... levied at the outset on hybrids and trucking companies and slowly phased in. California did this with their emission standards, allowing people to by-pass standards through several years and then offering a buy back to take the worst (decades old) off the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:26 PM

4. Republicans are the party of ideas

Bad ideas, ,mostly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:28 PM

5. The stupid... it just keeps coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:36 PM

8. If the tax is based on gallons used, how can they *not* be paying their 'fare' share?

What idiots.

The owners of the automobiles that use less gasoline are paying exactly the same amount per gallon as everyone else.

Why should they be penalized for buying less?

It's up to the legislators to figure out a better way to fund roads than a gasoline tax, not to penalize those that figured out a way to use less fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:44 PM

11. Are they using the roads less? Personally, I think a tonnage and mileage based tax is

better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:49 PM

14. They didn't make the rules, they're just playing the game.

But, yes, a formula based on weight/mileage and amount of fuel used in a year is more equitable.


After all, before too long electricity will be the primary motive force used for personal transport.

No gallons to tax at all, but they will still use the roadways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:53 PM

19. Yeah sure. And the trucks that tear up the roads????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:56 PM

21. Easy, now.

The only reason heavy trucks damage roadways is because they are crappy roadways. Roadbeds that are properly constructed handle heavy truck traffic just fine for years and years.

An FWIW, heavy trucks are taxed by the gallons purchased, by their weight and by the miles they operate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:02 PM

22. Sorry but my husband works in trucking. In Michigan they lie, cheat and steal all the time

on all of those things and nobody does nuttin' in Michigan about that. Esp. for out of state trucks. AND, these companies buy fuel at a cheaper price anyway by contract. Most companies register their rigs in states that have the cheapest registration fees even when the rigs only run in Michigan. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:10 PM

23. In what capacity?

What does your husband do in the trucking industry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:12 PM

24. Drives them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:28 PM

25. So do I, and have OTR since 1987, 10 of those years in Michigan

While your opinions may be passionately held, I assure you that your perspective is not entirely accurate.

In Michigan they lie, cheat and steal all the time on all of those things and nobody does nuttin' in Michigan about that


What things? Paying of road use and fuel taxes? Ask your husband about the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and ask him if he knows how it works.

Esp. for out of state trucks.


See above.

AND, these companies buy fuel at a cheaper price anyway by contract.


So does the company I work for, but that does NOT reduce the amount of taxes paid per gallon. Not by one cent.

Most companies register their rigs in states that have the cheapest registration fees even when the rigs only run in Michigan.


Sorry, but I call bullshit. Trucking companies register their tractors in the states they are based out of because they are required to BY LAW. Those that try and skate round such regulations get caught. Trailers are a completely different story, but the vast majority of trailers in this country burn no fuel. Obviously the ones that do are called Refrigerated Trailers and that fuel is taxed differently nationwide than fuel burned in a tractor unit.

You're dreaming if you think otherwise.


I'm not dreaming. I have almost 30 years in the industry. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:41 PM

10. Republicans aren't the only ones proposing mileage fees or increased registration fees

for fuel efficient of electric cars. Ideas have been floated by Democratic pols, as well.

The tax revenues are decreasing but the costs have maintaining personal vehicle infrastructure have not.

How would you propose paying for that infrastructure without an alternative tax base?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:46 PM

13. Someday these types of vehicles will reach a critical mass, and something like this

will need to be considered. The roads, unfortunately do not pay for themselves.

I don't think we are there yet, government should be encouraging and incentivizing people to adopt electric/hybrid vehicles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:03 PM

15. Groan

The Michigan State legislature is currently choc'full'o jack-asses.

there is nothing else to say about these fools

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:51 PM

18. Yup. 8 years of Bush and now this gang of thieves. Sick to death of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:15 PM

16. Well, gosh

Who ight benefit from depressing demand for non-fossil-fuel dependant vehicles.

Oh, right.

The oil companies bankrolling those senators. I wonder if they just faxed over the marching orders or if they sent an actual human to tell them how high to jump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:50 PM

17. Go ahead shit for brains. Just the type of thing needed for voters to show you the door.

These fuckers have done NOTHING but raise taxes and fees on hard working laboring men and women who DO pay taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:05 PM

27. How did republicans get a 22-11 advantage in the Michigan Senate? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:30 PM

28. More shit for brain voters. Its the one thing we DO have a lot of in Michigan these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:00 PM

26. The roads need to be funded by a state 'sales tax' and not just funded by those fortunate enough to

own a vehicle that rides upon them.

I don't know a goddamned soul in this State that doesn't not 'use the roadway' either riding in someones else car or taking a bus.

Everybody benefits from these roads and unless I start seeing people trekking across the fields and woods to get to town...everyone should contribute. BTW, stay the hell off the bridges too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:31 PM

29. Yes and more fees on trucks. They tear the roads up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:46 PM

30. Michigan has the highest weight limits for trucks in the nation which is ridiculous considering

our winter ground freeze and frost-line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:48 PM

31. Shhh...we're not supposed to tell the truth about that, or anything in Michigan these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:18 PM

34. It is indeed crazy around here. If Granholm had pulled some of the shit these repukes are pulling

off, the teabaggers would have burnt down the State House by now.

Nary a peep out of these 'knuckledraggers' though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:36 PM

36. No kidding. The stupid ones heads are about to explode re: Detroit tho'.

The deficit pit is about bottomless in the big D. They'll blame that on Granholm too although the bulk of the problems with Detroit began when Engler was in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:28 PM

35. There is a reason for that.

And that reason is the Automobile industry.

Cars are made of steel, and steel, in case you weren't aware, is not light.

Your statement "Michigan has the highest weight limits for trucks in the nation " is a bit misleading. What Michigan and Ohio, for that matter, allow is higher gross weights but they have the exact same axle weight limits as the other states. That's why you see the "Trains" in Michigan - those trucks that have multiple axles under the trailer. The allowed weight on each individual axle is the same as it is in other states, but the gross weight of the truck can be much higher because of all the axles and thus all the tires.

The actual weight footprint of a truck weighing 125,000 pounds that has 10 axles is comparable to an 18 wheeler weighing 80,000 pounds spread over 5 axles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:06 PM

33. A mere 40-45% of the cost of roads, upkeep, and related infrastructure is paid by the user...

through gasoline taxes, the other 55-60% is funded through general funds (federal funding, sales tax, personal taxes, corporate taxes) etc. Because we do not "pay as we go" in the U.S. is the major reason why our gas costs are cheap compared to Europe.

What is happening is that 40-45% is being short changed because of fuel efficient vehicles.

I see nothing wrong with coming up with a scheme that replaces the funding from it's original source with a tax structure that maintains the status quo without putting an additional burden on everyone else.

And certainly, I'd like to see a solution far more progressive than a sales tax. A weight, miles driven, and mpg weighted tax would make a lot more sense. I'd also advocate for license fees for bicyclists. Though, they damage they cause is a tiny fraction of the damage caused by cars and trucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:41 PM

38. The miles driven by cars vs. trucks with loads is a big, big difference.

Especially when a lot of these trucks come into or out of this state, drive these roads for free, support the commerce of the corporations they represent and pay nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:49 PM

32. What's next, a surcharge on shoes? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:38 PM

37. Probably bread. Isn't that the usual tax on peasants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:12 PM

43. Let me tell you how it will be

There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

"Taxman" - The Beatles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread