Report suggests taxing hybrid cars

[Taverner]

Report suggests taxing hybrid cars
US highway fund said running low

By Jim Abrams, Associated Press | November 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Taxing hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars and billing drivers for miles driven are among the approaches being suggested to avert a shortfall in money to maintain the nation's highways.

Less than four months after President Bush signed a six-year, $286.4 billion highway and public transit act, a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce said that the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money and that Congress needs to think about new revenue sources.

<SNIP>

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/26/report_suggests_taxing_hybrid_cars/

WTF....I thought these guys were supposed to be ANTI TAX??????

[Vickers]

1. They should tax by WEIGHT.

:eyes:

[ckramer]

12. That's right

the more heavier the car, the more damages to roads.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Should be the heavier the vehicle. Not just cars.

[Warpy]

17. WEIGHT is right. The heavy vehicles cause the most

wear and tear to the roads and should be taxed accordingly.

What Einstein in this witless administration is hitting the panic button over hybrids? It's not like they've made a dent in gas revenues! What may be causing revenues to drop is the fact that people are driving less because the gas prices had such a huge spike!

Honestly, this level of witlessness could only come from a Repuglican. If you want to encourage something (like fuel efficiency), don't tax it to death!

[leesa]

34. Ummm...they don't want to encourage fuel conservation..or haven't you

noticed? The bigger the guzzler, the more money they make all the way around. This is a punishment for Toyota and Honda and all the responsible auto makers and consumers.

[Megahurtz]

98. The Repukes want to encourage Oil Consumption.

:puke:

[grannylib]

107. Exactimundo. Gotta disincentivize all these tree huggers who wanna

save the planet.

[cascadiance]

112. But you see that would make Bushco's $25k depreciation credits

for heavy vehicles used for small businesses get diminished! If he taxed them higher by weight with other taxes, it would remove this gift to his constituency and make them rather meaningless!

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/workbusiness/index.cfm?story=equipment&adSection=smallbusiness&nav=smallbusiness

[creeksneakers2]

23. I think by gas is better

Weight gives no advantage to people who drive less, and therefore use less fuel.

[Orsino]

31. Tax by weight per ton of cargo capacity per mile per gallon.

It encourages fuel efficiency while partially exempting those big-ass semis that haul heavy loads. A big rig that gets a tenth of the miles-per-gallonage of my Prius is thus acknowledged to carry one hundred times as much stuff.

[iconoclastNYC]

116. The extra tax they pay is added to the cost of goods they haul.

And distributed by the number of goods they are hauling. Therefore they do not need any exemption.

[high density]

33. Agreed

Huge commercial vehicles rip up the roads, not the little Honda Civics.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. There is a weight tax in Japan

It's paid every two years at inspection time. There's also an engine displacement tax, which is paid every year. The weight tax is about $400 for a typical sedan; the engine displacement tax ranges from about $40 for the smallest cars (about 650cc) to $400 or more for the muscle cars (2 liters or over)

[hraka]

110. My old Honda was a muscle car?

I had a 1985 Civic wagon, 2.5 liter, 5-speed. Great gas mileage, low weight. Liters can be deceiving. But we're on the right track. Now, if we can get someone who can do something about it into office.

That would require that oil, car, and other corporations not be allowed to contribute to campaigns. It's not a gov't by the people, it's a gov't appointed by the corporations. This needs to change!!

[Tims]

92. Weight is immaterial for most personal vehicles

Cars, light trucks and even SUVs cause little damage or wear on most roads. The main source of deterioration is weather, ground subsidence and damage by large commercial trucks. Most roads would be virtually maintenance free if restricted to non-commercial traffic, yet taxes on commercial vehicles provide only a small portion of the cost of road maintenance and continued pressure from the tucking lobby has allowed the legal weight and size limits to continually increase all-the-while fighting to reduce their taxes.

But the biggest culprit in highway costs is new highway construction and expansion due to continuing urban sprawl. Every year people commute further and further.

We will never be able to control highway costs and vehicle emissions until we control urban sprawl. In fact, simply trying to keep up with building highways to support a growing commuter population simply encourages additional sprawl by making it easier to build further and further away from city centers.

Mileage and gasoline taxes are the fairest taxation for non-commercial vehicles, but we should do more to make urban living more attractive and affordable. We should also place a greater burden on real-estate developers to pay for infrastructure, including highways and maintenance, when they build in outlying areas.

[Stevious]

2. WTF?

Tax SUVs!

:wtf:

[Mountainman]

43. What is it you drive? Id rather tax that

[Stevious]

54. Tax what I drive?

Toyota Prius.

:nopity:

[Mountainman]

62. Good than I want to tax a Toyota Prius.

May just as well tax you. Makes as much sense as you deciding that others should be taxed.

The elitism here at DU among the hate SUV people bugs the hell out of me.

[MadisonProgressive]

64. I think he was just pointing out the absurdity of ONLY taxing

high-mpg vehicles. Are we trying to encourage fossil fuel conservation or discourage car makers and the energy companies from making the needed changes? If you are going to tax only one kind it would be better to tax low-mpg vehicles!

I guess I should point out that I drive a 2005 Toyota Prius. :hippie:

[KansDem]

89. I wonder about the wisdom of taxing fuel-efficent cars...

...and giving tax breaks to drivers of Hummers.

A HUMMER OF A TAX BREAK
December 12, 2003
OVERVIEW
One reason the U.S. government provides tax credits is to promote consumer behavior that benefits the greater good. While not many would argue with a tax credit that allows teachers to recover unreimbursed costs of school supplies, for example, some tax credits demonstrate a failure of our national priorities. The tax break given to small business owners that allows the entire purchase price of a sport utility vehicle (SUV) to be deducted is one of the most glaring examples of a good idea going in the wrong direction.

Under current tax policy, the U.S. government grants massive tax breaks to purchasers of SUVs. The original intent of the provision was to increase capital investments by farmers and other small business owners who rely on light-trucks or vans (ie. construction companies). When this provision was added to the tax code, luxury passenger SUVs were not the market force they have become, and it appeared a good way to help small business owners by accelerating depreciation and avoiding a luxury-tax surcharge.1

Over time, however, this provision has developed into a loophole-a loophole big enough to drive a 6,000-pound SUV through. The problem has arisen largely because the tax code classifies vehicles by weight instead of function. First, a truck or van is defined as a vehicle that weighs more than 6,000 pounds.2 Before the advent of the SUV, this was a sufficient way to separate passenger automobiles from other classes of vehicles. The growth of the market for large, luxury SUVs, has dramatically expanded the number of what are essentially passenger vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds. In addition, the weight classification for a passenger automobile is determined by the "unloaded gross vehicle weight," or the amount the vehicle weighs with nothing in it.3 SUVs are weighed according to the "gross vehicle weight" rating, which is the weight of the car itself plus the load the vehicle should be able to carry.4 This distinction makes it easier for certain vehicles to achieve the status of "light-truck" even if the actual vehicle weight is more in line with passenger automobiles.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm

Doesn't make sense in Peak Oil.

Oh, and for the record, I drive a 1965 Chevelle.

[Voltaire99]

68. Good.

You should have no rest: your SUV driving is wasteful, harmful, dangerous to other drivers, and a mark of indifference to other Americans and the planet.

If you think that's "elitism," maybe your inner Republican is speaking too loudly. Try an exorcist.

[stray cat]

120. SUVs are good in the snow

Some of them get better gas mileage than certain cars. I drive a toyota corolla and would hate to have a collision with a SUV. However, I don't know all the decisions that people weigh before they purchase an SUV so no way will I play holier than thou and issue blanket condemnations.

[hraka]

111. Ok, with a name like "Mountainman"...

I can assume you use your SUV for other than carting the kids to school or going to the gym? I don't hate SUV's. What I don't like is seeing anyone purchase a huge vehicle (can you say Hummer?) just to be cool - instead of a nerdy minivan - then complain at the gas pump because it costs $75 to fill the tank.
Pay as you go. If you use more, pay more.

[Megahurtz]

99. Yeah! Tax SUV's!!!

:bounce:

[MindPilot]

3. They're only anti-tax for the top 1%

the rest of us owe to them for letting us bathe in their glory.
:grr:

On edit: I'll bet my next paycheck the highway funds they're talking about will be earmarked to build and maintain IRAQI highways.

[Taverner]

30. And two highways in particular

The one from the oil fields to the ports, and the one from the airport
:grr:

[jeff30997]

4. That's a good way to discourage people who...

Don't want to be good oil-consuming sheep.

[MellowOne]

56. exactly what I thought as well

Maybe they could also send them electric bills.

[tularetom]

5. This is total bullshit

They should be taxing the giant overloaded trucks that tear up the fucking highways. One semi truck (loaded) does as much damage to the roads as 9000 cars. Most states already do have a system of adjusting registration fees for semi trucks but the fees are in no way proportional to the damage done to the roads by the trucks. Unless of course we want to subsidize the trucking industry in return for cheaper prices on consumer goods that are delivered by truck. It really is a policy question but I say apportion the costs according to the cause.

[MindPilot]

11. We already subsidize the trucking industry, and get nothing in return

The trucking industry is helped by the government's deliberate failure to adequately support rail systems, and the interstate highway system itself was a giant gift to the trucking industry.

[dogfacedboy]

47. Worst transportation scandal in US history:

letting the rail system go to shit, both freight AND passenger.

[Oldtimeralso]

48. Passenger Rail

Three Years in a row Amtrak has set new record numbers for passengers but the Shrub flunkies that he appointed to the Board of Directors fired the CEO that had 40 years of rail experience because he did not want to privatize the Northeast corridor (Halliburtonize). Congress overruled the MISadministration's zero budget for Amtrak and the House even had hearings calling the BOD on the carpet and questioning the legality of their actions!

[bvar22]

16. I agree.

Support programs and tax discounts that encourage shipping by rail.

*Hi-Ways would become less congested

*Less fatal accidents

*Less damage to Hi-Way

*Less pollution

*The RAIL systems in the US would become more efficient


The US NEEDS to develop rail systems to combat pollution, lessen oil consumption, and provide a more effecient option for mass transit.
The new technologies MUST be developed "in house" and NOT purchased from a foreign vendor.
REdevelopment and Expansion of the US RAIL system should be part of a ten year plan to:

*attack pollution

*provide jobs in the US

*prepare for growth beyond OIL dependence

Why are WE wasting our $BILLIONS on the Defense Dept?

Where are the DEMOCRATS?

[jayctravis]

38. Right! More rail.

Even if there were short-moderate distances between rail hubs or the rail station and a warehouse...that's what trucks SHOULD be used for.

[MrMonk]

40. Add a third trailer to the double-trailer semis

and just call them trains.

[Xithras]

50. Actually, rail traffic is at record highs.

Passenger rail may be problematic in this country, but freight rail is booming. There's actually so much rail traffic nowadays that many lines can't handle any additional traffic. One of the proposed high speed rail routes here in California was recently derailed because it advocated using existing rails. The railroad companies had a complete fit because several of the segments were already exceeding their maximum capacities. There was no room to add additional trains or cars.

Building new rail lines is typically more expensive than widening highways simply because highways usually have enough frontage to add lanes without purchasing land. Rail lines, which almost always run in the same right-of-ways that were granted in the 1800s, don't have any room to grow. The costs of claiming eminent domain on land to widen the tracks today would easily exceed a billion dollars every 100 miles.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. We pay $6000 every year to license two trucks....

We pay $1200 for heavy wt. permits
we pay mileage tax for OR every month, from $250 to $600.

Fuel bill - 2 semis, 1 lorry, 4 yard equipment - $4500 per month

as a result of this years #'s, we are selling the two semis, and 2 people lose their jobs. I get to tell them next week. oh joy.

[hraka]

114. May 2006 (post election) fare better...

and 2008 even better. My heart goes out to small business owners who are being taxed right out of existence. We were all lied to - problem is, only 1/2 of the nation realized it.

ps. do I understand OR to mean Oregon? Beaverton here.

[LiberalFighter]

21. How about those double trailer semi's!!

[Occulus]

73. How about a one-time tax upon completion of each vehicle

payable by the CEOs and corporate officers of the manufacturer.

:evilgrin:

[FormerRepublican]

6. Cheney strikes again!

Can't have all those hybrid cars reducing demand for BIG OIL!!!! Halliburton would lose money!

So tax all them hybrids until we get them off the street. Let global warming go hang.

:mad: :puke:

[Liberal Veteran]

7. But..but..these hybrid owners are stealing...

They are stealing oil company profits and tax revenues from gas sales! They must be punished!

[longship]

8. Why don't they just tax Democrats?

That's right, they already do that. Somebody ought to challenge the tax laws on the basis of political party bias.
:evilgrin:

[Gregorian]

9. Now it all makes sense. Control through taxation.

Don't buy GM- taxed.
Have kids (potential shoppers)- tax break.

Now I see. They tax according to whether you are with the corporations or against them.

No, I have not thought this through. I'm just blabbing typing.

[Voltaire99]

69. Pretty good blabbing.

You've figured it out.

In the hands of our duopolists--GOP or GOP-lite--the nation is seen as a machine for creating expanding consumption.

Lots of mechanisms can be used to achieve this; taxation's only one, but it's pretty significant.

[tularetom]

10. Actually I think this is an attempt

to even the playing field for the hapless US auto industry which is eons behind the Japanese when it comes to the production of fuel efficient cars. It won't work because there are too many other factors working against American cars like reliability and poor repair records. They won't be able to force the public to buy crap by an unfair tax policy.

[MindPilot]

15. "hapless US auto industry" sounds like they're the victims

They couldn't keep up with the Japanese? Make that they *wouldn't* keep up with the Japanese. Bad design, poor reliability and even yes, I'll say it, some of the ugliest fucking excuses for automobiles ever have sent buyers to Nissan, Toyota, VW, etc.

The American car company execs know what they have to do to fix things, but they are too afraid to take the risks because pleasing the stockholders is far more important than designing and building an innovative product.

[darkmaestro019]

51. re: ugliest, I have to give you a Hell yeah

I'm a devout and starry-eyed fan of seventies Chevrolets and strange classic fifties-sixties Fords, for Americana-nostalgia reasons, but you hit seventy-nine and after that I wrinkle my nose. My first "car" was a seventy-five Chevy El Camino--and I bet you we're not going to see any 05 Chevys on the road in 2025. : )

If it's going to eat gasoline and be gargantuan and need constant repairs it's at LEAST going to have to make me happy to see it existing. All that on top of ugly and more $ than I make in a year just isn't gonna lure me in to buy anything.

I say to my beloved all the time that I haven't seen a new car in ten years that I liked that didn't turn out to be Japanese. If we ever, ever can afford to buy a "new" car it'll probably be Japanese--and it'll probably be from a person and not a dealership.

[Voltaire99]

70. US car design: beaten stupid with an ugly stick in the late 70s

Nice post, darkmaestro.

I trace the end to the K cars, which ushered in the era of the turd-box.

Only a few years earlier you could still find motifs of joy and sex in US cars. In fact the further one goes back the stranger, and more strangely beautiful, grow the designs.

The current crop?

Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You couldn't give me one.

[salin]

13. bah humbug!

as someone else posts above... if one is concerned about wear and tear on the infrastructure, then tax by weight.

btw - by the end of December I will be driving a brand new Prius. My first new car (always have bought used) ever.

[MadisonProgressive]

65. You will be VERY happy - just got mine a few months ago...

[salin]

77. Glad to hear you are so pleased...

In a couple of months, we should compare notes :D

[benny05]

84. This is BS--taxing those of us who are helping the environment

I have 2004 Prius and I'm damn proud of it. We shouldn't be taxed for saving gas for the rest of the planet who wants to use it for other purposes. The Prius also has the least emissions which is good for our environment. So the gov wants to tax us for helping the planet. Great. :evilfrown:

[Nihil]

91. The government wants to tax its enemies ...

... and as you are trying to help the planet while they are trying to
destroy it, you are obviously their enemy!

There comes a time when the word "immoral" is simply an understatement.

[snippy]

14. How very republican. n/t

[stepnw1f]

18. Fuck the GOP Oil Barons!

They can kiss our collective asses.

[fshrink]

22. Another idea:

Tax shoes. That's a lot of money right there.

[rucky]

24. What if we drive in reverse? Will they pay us? n/t

[lakeguy]

25. about the dumbest thing i've heard from the pigs...

at least today anyway. i'm sure i'll hear something as equally as stupid tomorrow.

if they're gonna tax, why can't they just institute a carbon tax. i know, i know, big oil will never let them.

[HuffleClaw]

26. taxing fuel efficient cars ????

and let me guess, giving tax credits to those who buy suvs ?

[salin]

32. let people 'trade' tax credits based on desired fuel economy...

voluntary, of course...

make no sense? Of course not - but this is the bushco prefered way of dealing with any pollution.

[Taverner]

53. There already are tax credits for SUVs and Hummers

As they are classified as trucks

[mojowork_n]

96. *** Of course there are tax credits for SUV's ***

Hummers, by virture of their gross weight and the Republicans who were responsible for the classification, have been put into the same tax category as agricultural equipment, and some other kinds of commercial vehicles. (Things like tow trucks, farm tractors, and high-lift, rough terrain construction forklifts.)

What started out as a mostly OK idea -- helping small entrepreneurs who have to buy those kinds of vehicles for their businesses -- has been turned into a major misappropriation of Federal Treasury funds... another Reverse Robin Hood Republican rip-off, rewarding the fat cats who buy Hummers, at the expense of most all of the rest of us who have to make up the difference for the $6,000 Federal Tax write-off (I think that's the number, but don't quote me, please) that goes to the owners of new Hummers who qualify.

I don't know for sure (it's been a while since I saw anything on this in print), but I think this tax credit *is* done on the basis of weight. So a little corner-shop car mechanic who wants to invest in a skid-steer loader (Bobcat) to clear snow and push stalled cars around, doesn't qualify, but a C.P.A. or corporate attorney with a tax number will, because the Hummer's heavier than the Bobcat.

(And because the lobbying groups that represent the interests of neighborhood mechanics happen to be so woefully, *grossly* under-funded... I don't know, it's been a couple of years since I read about this, but I don't recall seeing any updates or changes...)

[Wise Doubter]

27. How about ...

Tax the fuckin` oil companies !!!!! Ya know, the ones that made 10 BILLION DOLLARS in 3 months !!


oh, never mind...:grr:

[twaddler01]

29. That works better

They make enough don't they?

[twaddler01]

28. How about this...

We tax those gas hoggers and NOT tax the ones that are more efficient. This encourages the use of more environmental friendly cars. I can dream can't I? Someday we will be better to the environment...until then, gas it is.

[Disturbed]

35. Just when I thought the RW couldn't be any more stupid.

This is a new low in somebody's logic.

[0007]

36. God! I bet the taxes would be indeed out of sight on a car

that ran on water and fresh air and sunlight.

I want Tom DeLay back on the floor where common sense is easy to understand.

[ConcernedCanuk]

37. Hey y'all - you gotta think about if from the PNACer's point of view!

.
.
.

What if everyone just parked their vehicles, walked and used bicycles??

bicycle tires would be worth a fortune - and so would shoes!!

Ya won't see the PNACer's losing a penny outta their megabucks pockets -

they'll get ya one way or another . . .

"Death and Taxes"

The only guarantees I know of . . . .

(sigh)

[GoddessOfGuinness]

39. So, they want to discourage people from fuel economy?

fuckers.

[lovuian]

41. this proves to me they want Americans to pay gas taxes and

pay the oil companies and Saudis!!!

[MasonJar]

42. Now that idea is pure pugville. Tax the fuel efficint care and their

drivers....wow! What genius arrived at such a solution? Wait. Can I guess? Someone from the oil or car industry or one of their lackeys in D.C.

[Hekate]

44. Why don't they single out the Urban Assault Vehicles for taxation?!

There are some personal vehicles that simply have no place on city streets, suburbs, and freeways. They are unsafe for occupants, pedestrians, and oncoming traffic. They guzzle obscene amounts of gas. They are solely status symbols.

I am not talking about working trucks, or rugged vehicles for people who live down rutted dirt roads.

Hekate

[LibDemAlways]

79. I dread dropping off my daughter at

middle school every morning and picking her up in the afternoon. (It's too far to walk and there's no public transportation. A bicycle is out of the question because she has to lug a backpack and books for every subject.) So there I am, driving one of the few small passenger cars in a sea of those monsters - hummers, escalades, armadas, yukons, suburbans, excursions - you name it, every POS gas guzzler is well represented - almost all of them leased by families with no more than three kids and driven one-handed by women whose ears are glued to their cell-phones while they speed through the parking lot.

If any class of vehicle deserves to be taxed, it's those pieces of shit and the idiots who drive them.

[Macman44]

97. I drive a 2005

Chevrolet Duramax Diesel 4X4 2500 Heavy duty. Even if I didn't need this truck I would still have it because I want it. But I have three horses that I trailer in a 20' gooseneck stock trailor and when I go to work, I drive 86 miles round trip 6 days a week. I fill up every third day and diesel where I live is $2.66 a gallon. And there is a tax credit for operating a diesel powered vehicle as they are more efficient burning fuel than 99% of all gas vehicles. So I can write off the mileage on my taxes, take the tax credit for operating a diesel powered vehicle. I also just moved over 1500 miles at my expense and that can also be written off. Along with hotel bills, fuel and food purchases. Search the tax code for all those little goodies that can be written off and you can actually come out ahead fo the game. It just takes a little research. Because of that, I am not so pissed anymore.

[Hekate]

102. After some little kids were creamed at a school pick-up spot

in L.A., one of the articles I read about UAV's pointed out that the drivers often can't tell when they've climbed the curb (!), and accidents like that one have become more common. And with a cell-phone glued to Mom's ear...

As I crossed the street in our little city awhile back I tried to catch the eye of the driver of the tank with its nose against the crosswalk lines. (Looked like a tank; probably was a Hummer?) She never looked my way, but the thing that really struck me (so to speak) was that as I passed in front of the vehicle I completely lost sight of the driver. Which meant, I think, that she couldn't see me either.

Hekate

[LibDemAlways]

103. You are right. Those vehicles are downright

dangerous and many of the drivers have little or no experience driving a truck - which is what those monstrosities are. I breathe a sign of relief every time I make it out of the parking lot unscathed.

[Ravy]

45. They should either raise or index the gas tax.

It hasn't been increased since 1993, and is not currently indexed. It costs more now to maintain the roads.

No one likes to pay taxes, but the highways and bridges are not in the best of shape and need maintenance to prevent more costly repairs in the future if not maintained.

Gas prices are *somewhat* affected by supply and demaind. To that extent, higher gasoline taxes will help cut our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Adding an additional form of taxation for hybrids is counter to the long term interests of our country.

[Robeson]

46. Tax the living shit out of the wealthiest 1% in this country.....

...Problem solved!

[Taverner]

52. I am there 100%

Where this country got off thinking that taxing the rich is "unamerican" is beyond me.

[hraka]

115. My parents still think they got a tax break...

and they're pissed because my mom's SS benefits are taxed (Clinton). Her only "break" came when she moved to a state with no state income tax. (I'm in Oegon and we pay 6-9% in state income tax - no sales tax. She moved to Nevada, no income tax but they have a sales tax.)

[namvet73]

60. That's got my vote! It's an obvious source of lost old revenue, so...

why look for sources of new revenue?

[PinkyisBlue]

80. There's no getting around the fact that the wealthiest Americans

need to pay more in taxes. After all, they have benefitted the most from the current corporate climate, often on the backs of those less fortunate than themselves. (Like the CEO who rakes in an extra million while laying off 500 employees). Or the Vice-President whose company lands a lucrative contract rebuilding Iraq while, at the same time, benefits to those Americans required to fight in Iraq are cut. Unfortunately, the 1% of the wealthiest Americans who would be taxed are the same ones who make tax laws.

[Robeson]

83. Which is the proof in the pudding, we live in a plutocracy, and not...

...a democracy. Or as I've always said about this country, it's a "dance" of democracy.

[cascadiance]

113. That "correction" should be item 1 on Democrats "Contract for America"

to "undo" the earlier dismantling by Gingrich's "Contract On America" once they retake congress in 2006!

[slybacon9]

49. Tax the goddam oil companies.

we pay for the oil. we pay for the roads. we pay for the cars.

now we gotta pay more cuz we want to pay less?

these motherfers made 90% profit off us.... THEY CAN AFFORD THE ROAD TAX.

[MadisonProgressive]

66. The bastards would just pass it off to the consumer - guaranteed!

[madmark]

55. This would be an outrageous state attack on an oil substitute.

And a defacto subsidy of the oil industry and the domestic suv/truck manufacturing industry. Exactly the wrong public policy at the worst possible time.

[Arugula Latte]

57. This could be a huge PR blunder for them.

If they attempt this, it should be shouted from the rooftops.

[Cleita]

58. Well, that will encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars.

:sarcasm:

[happydreams]

72. Bingo! This is one way of the oil barons undermining

alternatives to oil.

[savemefromdumbya]

59. didn't find much trouble in getting billions for Iraq - what about roads!

yes we the taxpayers are getting spuer angry!

[warrens]

61. That's insane. Tax SUVs. And Hummers double.

[jasmeel]

63. Tax and spend repubs strike again!! This pisses me off to no end.

Who do we contact to complain?

[MadisonProgressive]

67. Few people that want to get reelected will vote for this

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

74. wouldn't want to Tax the OIL companies who are making record profits

from the cars driving on the roads--

[EndElectoral]

75. Punish the Energy Reponsible...Another part of GW's Clear Skies Initiative

It's becoming inane.

[AndyS40]

76. Are they mad?!

Everywhere I look, I see Republicans doing whatever they can to put Americans in perpetual servitude to people across the world who do not have our best interests at heart.

Support the Chinese - buy Walmart.

Support our troops (apparently to keep them in perpetual war) - buy a Hummer (so as to consume the maximum amount of foreign crude oil possible) and for Pete's sake don't forget the cutesy jingoistic sticker on the back!

Now this?!

And these people have the unmitigated gall to call their opponents Anti-American?

Yes, let's close down all the factories and get service jobs, that'll pump us all up. Soon we'll outsource the service jobs too, and then everyone will be happy. The Republicans would have us believe that we can defy economic gravity forever and then they say liberals are economically unsophisticated?

What are people in the rest of the world supposed to buy from Americans?

[MalachiConstant]

78. i wish the articles

said who was proposing this tax. it would be nice to contact them and tell them just how retarded they are (not to mention how much i would support their ousting).

[DebbieCDC]

101. Tax is being proposed by

None other than the bizness-backed US Chamber of Commerce.

They can kiss this proud Prius owner's ass.

[MalachiConstant]

105. that's too bad,

not even an elected official to contact.

[jsamuel]

81. :mad:

:mad:

[FighttheFuture]

82. Only in Bu$hitCo's Bizzarro Republi-fascists world would Hummers ...

get a tax credit and lightweight hybirds be taxed even more!!

How about we get out of Iraq which costs over $2,000,000,000 (billion) a WEEK and also remove Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearl, et. al. for treason and pursue consequences of that against them and save this country and its reputation?! Eh?

That would go a long way to fixing this mess!

[Ganja Ninja]

85. Yup, If you needed any more proof the oil Barron's had control

of this country there it is.

[lonestarnot]

86. Penalty tax against conservation! Yeah this makes sense under this

admin.!Assholes!

[nolabels]

87. They are ALL effing crooks

The fuel efficient car makers have just found a better mousetrap to lure their pray. If the priority was efficient mass transit instead of WAR for resources this debate would be a brain storming session instead. The Conquer and Divide even works on many unsuspecting DUers, how surprising :shrug:

[underpants]

88. WOW LOL and OMG all together

Geesh-what say you tax according to weight and increase the tax on gas (gasp!) which of course will increase the DEMAND for high efficiency cars (gasp!) but the tax revenue will stay the same.

[LSK]

90. END THE FUCKING WAR

Plenty of money will "free up" then to pay for things like ROADS.

[texpatriot2004]

93. That's the truth. Taxing hybrids is not the answer. nm

[bleedingheart]

95. I second that....

[DainBramaged]

94. Simply the stupidest, most self-fucking defeating proposal in history

You just KNOW the oily hands of the oil cartel is behind this.

And one more question?

How much money is enough you ass wipes, how much?

[happydreams]

104. In the movie Key Largo when somebody asked mobster

Johny Rocko, played by Edward G. Robinson (a phenomenal actor), Bogart cut in after nobody said anything for awhile and said "More, Rocko wants more, ain't that right Rocko"?
Rocko replies with eyes lighting up: "Yea, that's it MORE!!"

The fascists power is not about just money but depriving the people of the means to be free. They truly are demented feudalists.

[screembloodymurder]

100. I think I hear the sound of environmental terrorist

in the making.

[Realityhack]

106. Ug...

Ok. Theoreticaly if everybody in the country drove a zero gassoline car the gas tax would collect nothing and you would need an alternative sorce of revenues for highway maintainance... the thing is we want to Encorage such a situation (ie decreased dependence on oil).

Looking at the options in the short run the simple thing to do is rais the gas tax. This puts the burdon on those who drive (ie the more you drive the more you pay) as well as encouraging people to drive cars that get better milage. Also, on average this would put more of the burdon on heavier vehicles as they tend to be less efficent.

In the long term their are many diffrent options. Their are few if any projected vehicles that will run without any fueling station at all (strait electric is relatively dead right now) so you could put a 'pump tax' on all fuels pumped for vehicular use. You could 'tilt' that tax to encourage cleaner fuels as well.
You could also go after companies for an increased share as they disproportionately benifit from the highway system. ie. I can get to work by bike... the frieght we ship all over the country (in huge heavy trucks) can't.
You could theoreticaly tax in part by mile x class of vehicle or some such ballony but it would be practicaly imposible to administer.

Fact is that raising the gas tax makes the most sense in the short run (say 5 years at least) and there is no real point to discussing anything else right now anyway.

I know some people will go cookoo bananas about a gas tax increase... but even doubleing it would be less than we are seeing these days in month to month volitility anyway. Far less than it has gone up in the last 6 years for other reasons.

I don't drive a super efficent car (can't afford one) and I do drive quite a bit (short commute but long road trips). I say... tax the fuck out of my gas!

[zbdent]

108. Because RWers do not drive environmentally friendly vehicles

It's only us "weenie liberals" who are concerned about gas mileage (now that the gas prices have "fallen") and think that actually doing something about a problem could do better than a tax cut.

So, of course, the larger vehicles do the damage, and the smaller (more efficient) vehicles get the penalt. Yet another "tax break" for those who can afford mammoth SUVs (now that the 1/2 off tax break is off the books for large vehicles) . . .

[mojowork_n]

117. for the record

I looked up the revised tax credit for Hummers. In most cases, the full write-off for the cost of the vehicle takes a little longer, now, but the owners are still being paid to buy them. The credit's not gone, it's only been spruced up, for appearance's sake. (Remember who controls the Congress.)

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403a1.asp

It's simple, really... Taxing hybrids is all about putting the screws to Democrats, nerdy techno-geeks, and all the assorted varieties of progressives in between. Real Republicans only drive the most inefficient, symbolically over-compensating vehicles, so they're the ones who get the tax break.

[hraka]

109. Maybe this was already said, but tax by fuel efficiency

You drive a vehicle that gets 10mph or less, you pay 10% tax.
11-19 mph, tax is 7%
20-29 mph, tax is 5%
30-39 mph, tax is 3%.
If you are socially conscious enough to drive a car that gets 40mph or better, 1% tax and a cookie (ok, no cookie)

Plus, I know alot of working poor who drive older, less fuel efficient cars, like those old Buicks and Plymouths you see still out there. Give people incentives to trade in their old guzzlers. How about a one time tax credit, like what was first suggested for hybrids?

[elsiesummers]

118. Bottom of article mentions inflation indexing gas tax...logical

If they just inflation indexed the gas tax much of the problem would be solved.

Simply taxing SUVs more (though of course they should be taxed as much as every other car, even for small businesses) doesn't solve all the problems.

For example, I drive a small SUV (Jeep Liberty), but have a long dirt driveway and live in snow country, I'm not a high milage driver, I bundle trips, and I haul a lot of stuff around. Though I've been known (in the past) to tie drywall and lumber to the roof of a Geo Prizm, this month alone I have made three trips in the Jeep filled with trees, a treadmill, and mulch, that would have been tough in the Geo Prizm. I use the 4wd weekly to get out of the driveway.

Another example, my parents have big very old gas guzzlers, but they hardly ever drive them (about 1000 miles per year).

Actual quantity of driving should have something to do with tax paid.

But have to say, I was appalled that my SIL said their Real Estate broker took them around in a Hummer. This makes no sense and I honestly can't see why they didn't dump her as a broker - except that her husband also has a Lexus SUV that he drives, with just him in the car, as a commuter vehicle (another example of a car that doesn't fit with the transportation needs, and they bought a Hummer of a House (6000 sq feet).

There has to be a way to punish the guzzling abusers w/o punishing those who use vehicles legitimately. The only way I see it is with gas taxes.

If conspicuous consumption became embarassing - a badge of ignorance rather than status - a lot of these sorts of ridiculous vehicles, and houses for that matter, would no longer be produced.

[jsamuel]

119. I think that is the problem: There are 5 million ways to fix the problem

but the first solution they suggest is taxing hybrid owners.

Exactly...

[fujiyama]

121. The only suggestion I've heard

that makes sense is raising the gas tax (yes it's unpopular but it makes the most sense), and then giving back an equal tax refund...

Or better yet, spend that money on research for alternative fuel vehicles and sources.