Group Suggests Hybrid Tax; Billing Drivers By Mile

[4dsc]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested that the federal government tax hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars.

The chamber said the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money to maintain the nation's highways, and that Congress needs to consider new sources of revenue.

http://www.kcci.com/automotive/5402711/detail.html

[nickinSTL]

1. great...so, I'm guessing this was thought up by

the oil industry, right?

[Bjornsdotter]

15. That's my guess n/t

[tularetom]

2. Why don't they tax the fuckin big rigs

that actually cause the damage to the highways that requires so much money to maintain. FYI, one loaded semi truck is equal (in impact not actual weight) to 9,000 automobiles in terms of damage to a road surface. This is total bullshit and another attempt by the fucked up American auto industry to use the government to level the playing field with Japanese producers.

[roguevalley]

11. For those of us living in the sticks, this would be disastrous. And

where is the equity for those living in cities where transportation alternatives are there

[Bjornsdotter]

16. They do

Mr. Bjornsdotter and I used to own a trucking company...mostly local P&D using straight trucks. We got taxed at a very high rate for road usage due to the damage that trucks can cause the roads.

Now how about taxing the hummers and other heavily weighted vehicles?

Cheers!

[Eugene]

3. Indexing federal gas taxes to inflation is a simpler and more direct

approach to the revenue problem even though the anti-tax crowd
hates the idea.

[Bru]

21. I like the adjusting-for-inflation idea

It would be a start.

Plus, as others have mentioned, a tax on emissions would be good. It could go directly into the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) type of funding in the Highway bill. This would mean more money for bike paths and whatever else the funding can be used for. This, in turn, means less cars on the road, and less need of roads and road repair.

Also, we could just stop allocting funding for things like the two bridges to nowhere, and the "road to nowhere," in Alaska. But that'll never happen on Ted Stevens' and Don Young's watch.

[AX10]

4. Because the Chamber of Commerce is a right wing shell group..

who's main purpose is to prop up the piggy executives at GM.

[Mr.Green93]

5. A dollar a pound per year for everything over 2200 pounds

Would be more fair to the roads.

[Ian David]

6. If they do this, then SUV drivers will pay more for their insurance...

due to the cost of covering them against vandalism.

Don't blame me.

[catmother]

7. sounds good to me. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

8. Tax the ones that are doing the least harm?

Sounds like a conservative idea to me.

[cornermouse]

9. If they do that, hybrid owners will have less to spend in the

businesses that they supposedly represent. Perhaps someone should remind them and the businesses they "represent" of that not-so-little fact.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Other Sources of Highway Fund Revenues

1. A tax based on Gross Vehicle Weight.
2. A tax based on "Shadow Area" - length times width.
3. A tax based on "Cubage" - length times width times maximum height.
4. An emissions tax.
5. A fuel efficiency tax - Gallons per Ton-Mile.

This is a discriminatory tax on high mileage cars and it might be a "technical violation" of the Patriot Act.

Just proposing this tax might also be some evidence of being an agent of a "foreign power" - such as Saudi Arabia.

In any event - I think it is treason in time of a resource war over oil (and on the threshold of "Peak Oil")

[OneBlueSky]

12. American critical thinking at work . . . duh . . . n/t

.

[punpirate]

13. The HTF is running low because of...

... boondoggles like the bridges to nowhere and the "Big Dig."

The Chamber of Commerce thinks that taxing hybrids will discourage their purchase, thus keeping oil demand--and prices--high. Sounds like a combination of a desperation move by US car companies and a pitch by the oil companies, through the USCoC, to maintain the status quo.

Doesn't make good sense--they were trying to float the same proposal last spring in Oregon, claiming that hybrids would increase road wear and tear. Their study conveniently ignored the fact that the primary cause of road wear is axle weight.

These people better wake up and stop listening to corporate America and start listening to the small businesses that make up the bulk of their membership.

[Boomer]

14. On the backs of the middle-class

I'd say on the backs of the poor, but not many poor families can afford a hybrid.

In my region, it's middle-class families who need to commute long distances, because the price of housing near Washington DC is too high to afford on an average income. The more modest the income, the farther away you have to live.

This tax would be yet another penalty for not being rich enough to afford a gas-guzzling SUV and the high-price of gasoline.

[NNadir]

17. How about quadrupling fees on Hummers.

Those big things actually wear out the roads.

[freethought]

18. How bout this!

Raise the gasoline tax. How much, well I'm not sure. Then slap a luxury tax on SUVs, maybe even an annual tax. Some people will hate it, without a doubt, and scream "Why can't I buy whatever I want!"
A two pronged effort to raise revenue and modify behavior. Move people into smaller fuel efficient cars and hopefully some moderation of driving habits.

Just a thought!

[WhollyHeretic]

19. They are actively working to destroy the environment.

It's just absolute insanity.

[aztc]

20. Make it fair

To promote efficiency in transportation we should reward those who choose efficient cars and trucks and provide an incentive for large inefficient vehicle owners to use them less or not at all. The most effective way to do this is through a "carbon tax" or a "pollution tax" added to the fuel as it is purchased. This would be the fairest way to distribute the true costs according to the source. All transportation choices have an impact on our environment, but highly efficient vehicles have the least impact and use less fuel and therefore will pay less, while the worst polluters will pay for the damage they do and have good incentive to change their driving choices.

Further incentives should be provided in vehicle registrations based on weight and horsepower with the heaviest vehicles that have the largest horsepower paying the most. It would be entirely fair to match the Federal tax incentives with an equal State registration fee. Hardship and special case exemptions can be made available on a case by case basis. All taxes and fees collected should be earmarked for biofuel development and public transit improvements.

[dcfirefighter]

22. Road users should pay for the damages

The trust should not pay for road widening or new roads - it should only pay for the 'national' portion of the network: new spurs, etc. should be paid for by the states in which they reside. Building a new interchange increases the value of property nearby. Taxes against the increase in land value would be appropriate.

Maintenance should be paid for by those who cause the damage - an annual fee proportional to distance x gvw ^2 would be appropriate.

Pollution & military expiditions for oil should be paid for by those who use oil, a gas tax would be appropriate.

If I had a completely electric vehicle, I would pay no gas taxes, which pay for the roads - I would be getting a free ride. While this may have other social benefits (lesss pollution and foreign oil dependnace) it would still cause some wear & tear on the road system.

As far as rural users, I don't believe it is the place of urban residents to subsidize rural ones - to the extent that rural residents provide agricultural and other goods, they receive fair compensation (which would rise if not subsidized). Subsidizing rural & suburban users increases sprawl, forces development of wilderness, and increases oil use and pollution.

The evil of this proposal is not that it lays taxes on hybrid users, but that what once was a relatively useful proxy for road use is now much less useful.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Chamber - Traitors

Acting to discourage purchases of hybrids in time of a resource war -- where American kids are dying for oil.

Face it - this is a war to make the world safe for gas guzzlers -- they admit it! This is just getting the core PNAC agenda in through the back door - protect the market for gas guzzlers - no matter how fake and temporary -- and Kunstler is not overstating the problem by much and .

These traitors are making Kunstler's "Emergency" ever more inevitable.