Not only is this not a trend, it isn’t even a reality.
Yes, the states have lost fuel tax revenue thanks to increased fuel efficiency, but you could just as easily blame the fact that more people are riding motorcycles as you could blame hybrids.
Not one state has raised taxes on hybrids, but that hasn’t slowed down the hysteria.
“The hotel we use when we visit my son has two prime parking places with recharging stations for electric vehicles. I have never seen them used and have wondered if these are reserved for electric vehicles only.”
Just had an article in today’s Dallas paper about all the tax-supported charging stations going in at various retailers, and just about NONE are being used. The EV spokeman said they’re a waste of money, EV owners typically charge over night at their house, not for a few minutes while parking at a store. What a waste!
I am not an advocate for taxing hybrids differently from other vehicles. It’s counterproductive.
Besides, I’m against taxing someone for NOT doing something (like using more gas). That makes the tax punitive, and I don’t believe that the purpose of taxation should be to punish. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
@Bing
We don’t do that in Ohio, so I’ve never had to deal with that
“Unfortunately, it would seem that the Supreme Court disagrees with me.”
You don’t agree with Romneycare?
Seriously, we need to pay for road repairs. Tolls and fuel taxes both accomplish that goal directly by requiring those that use roads most to pay the lion’s share of the bill. I don’t care what fuel it is, every driver needs to pay for the roads.
The irony is that hybrids are given special tax incentives at the federal level but then some states wish to levy a penalty to discourage them.
I think most all the hybrid subsidies are gone. But there are lots of EV and plugin hybrid subsidies out there.
Here in Madison Wi there has been talk about how to properly tax hybrids. They considered a wheel tax but finally decided to charge a smugness tax.
If only that were possible, kriley. While there are certainly many Prius owners who are very conscientious regarding the environment, many seem to wear their Hybrids like a badge of honor similar to the owners of Hummers and Cummins diesel Dodge trucks.
@Rod_Knox:
The irony is that hybrids are given special tax incentives at the federal level but then some states wish to levy a penalty to discourage them.
The OP mentioned Washington, Whitey. Other states will follow their lead, don’t you think.
JT, you missed the point entirely. The Supreme Court said that it was within the government’s purvue to use the tax system punitively, to punish those who don’t comply with their will. It has long been my opinion that taxation is being used to control behaviors, to do social engineering. I consider the use of taxes as a directly punitive measure to be inconsistant with the intent and purpose of taxation. I’ve attached Wikipedia’s rough description of the sixteenth amendment and the history of taxation for your perusal…
I’m not talking about Obamacare. I’m talking about misuse of the public trust and misuse of the power to tax.
It looks like Oregon thought about it, but failed to pass it. Bills often take a few rounds through the legislature before they’re finally passed.
While it isn’t limited to hybrids, the Texas Transportation Commission was shown a report last year about mileage taxes for all cars. There are multiple programs among different states.
No, I don’t, because I refuse to panic over media hype.
People have been acting like Chicken Little for a years, telling us our hybrids will be taxed every time some legislator discusses the idea in an obscure subcommittee meeting. Wake me when someone introduces actual legislation for passage.
No state has actually come out in favor of taxing hybrid owners for owning hybrids, which is why I asked which states, according to you, “wish to levy a penalty to discourage them (hybrids).” Based on the lack of legislation, I submit no state wishes to levy a penalty to discourage hybrid ownership.
This so-called “move to put an extra tax of some sort on the existing and future hybrid owners” is nothing but media hype.
This is not for all hybrids. It is for plug in vehicles, plug in hybrids and straight EVs. In other words, vehicles that completely or largely avoid the gas tax support for roads. Regular hybrids don’t avoid that tax in any way different than a diesel or a high-mpg car.
@texases, you mean someone has actually introduced such legislation? Where?
See the first link under @f848 's post, above.
I had a different agenda. I understood what you meant. I doubt that anyone in Congress or the Administration thought of the penalty as a tax before Chief Justice Roberts said it. But as I understand it, essentially the same system is in force in Massachusetts, and Mr. Romney brought it in with his blessing. That is likely why Mr. Romney refuses to call it a tax. Whether it is legitimate as a tax or not is another thing. Taxes are used to coerce us to stop smoking; or at least smoke less.
@mountainbike, I understand and respect your point.
But, one could argue that the current system also levies a hidden tax on everyone who pays for some or all of their own health care…every time an uninsured person walks into an ER. We all end up paying for that uninsured person, and that’s a tax or surcharge, whatever you want to call it.
And you could further argue that the ones whose MARGINAL taxes will go up the most are the freeloaders who use the ERs for free, but now will either have to pay into the system or be taxed.
So, I would argue that, no matter how the health care system gets structured, certain costs can be called “taxes”, either explicit or implicit. The real issue is, how much does it cost each individual, and does the aggregate cost go down for most people when most people are required to by into the pool. Here in MA, our experience has been yes, the aggregate cost does go down when more people participate.
Anyway, the original point was about electric cars, and expecting owners of electrics cars to contribute their fair share of funds for road maintenance. I don’t see anything objectionable about that, but I don’t think those proposals will gain traction until a much larger % of the fleet becomes electric. Right now the % of electrics on the road is so trivial that such measures would bring in negligible additional revenue, so there’s just no benefit yet.