Yearly $75 hybrid fee WA State

Our hybrid sales tax exemption lasted only until August 2009, just a few months after the Gen3 was introduced. It was supposed to last much longer, but the state financial emergency caused the legislature to terminate it early -- and sneakily too, as the proposal never appeared on the 'search' feature of the legislature's Bill Info website until after the governor signed it into law.

I purchased my first Gen3 several months early because of this.

I see that you also calculated our sales tax rate as just 6.5%. That applies only to a few border counties where merchants must compete against tax-free Oregon. Local options mean that most of us pay 9.5%. And don't forget an additional 0.3% for cars.

 

Actually...that's not quite true.
Some states consider M/C's to be a "luxury" vehicle and charge them a higher property tax rate. MUCH higher in some cases.
My Vulcan gets 45MPG.
My tags for this vehicle are more expensive than my pickemuptruck. (same model year for both.)

I'll let those in the studio audience decide why you don't hear about this more often.

 

How about taxing dead people for being the ultimate conversationists?

 

Assuming that you mean conservationists (never met a dead person that was good conversation yet!), that is not so true.

My dad is aging and he wanted to see about getting a burial plot and the expenses set up in advance.

We all know about the casket, but were you aware of the requirement for a huge concrete VAULT designed to support the ground over your gravesite?

I can hardly believe that millions of people are all going to buried in vaults of 5000 psi concrete and that is somehow a reasonable thing we are doing with our land.

When I go I want to be cremated and planted in a garden.

Sorry for the tangent.

 

OK Thank you Fuzzy1, that's why one really needs first hand info. Oregon is like Delaware here (tax free). Perhaps I should think of Maryland (6% tax) as the buffer zone between Delaware and Virginia. Here are revised 10-yr numbers for WA:

$24k Prius Taxes: $3102 w/ new fees
$20k Non-Hybrid: $1960

So the hybrid premium is $1142 Tax + ~$4000 for car = $5142. Too much, but in VA I am as high as $7000 for the hybrid+tax premium. These numbers will hurt Hybrid sales, I feel. If that's the goal, then OK, but I don't think it should be the goal to hurt hybrid sales. You were smart Fuzzy on the timely Gen3 purchase.

PS- WA Sales tax alone the Hybrid is already paying almost $400 more at purchase!!! Gimme a break why they need to further tax Hybrids???

 

That's only true in some areas. In Indiana, it's not a state requirement but it is a requirement at many cemeteries. In my present state, many people just get planted in a plain old pine box...sans vault.
IIRC you don't even have to be embalmed in all states....although this info is several years old, and I'm sure that there may have been a federal "regulation" established since then.
I wanted to be cremated and impulsed out of a torpedo tube however (comma!) my CFO has strong feelings about my being planted in a cemetery...so I've left instructions to be placed in a plain pine box sans vault.
If the National Association of Funeral Directors lobbies some Congress Critter to mandate burial vaults in the interim....well....it doesn't make a heckuva lot of difference to me.
I won't be around.

With humble apologies to the OP...
This is PC.
Digressions are common.

 

Yes, I think that's the core of the problem; taxes were traditionally a revenue stream for essential government services, but they've morphed into a lever to micromanage the lives of the people. So we all squabble to get the thing we don't like (cigarettes? booze? big cars? cars that travel a lot? etc. etc.) taxed, and keep our stuff from getting taxed. It's all said to be for a good cause, but at the end of the day our taxes are labyrinthine and intrusive, and we can't take a step without looking for the permission of some bureaucratic authority. There's serious talk of taxing cars by the mile...which means that Big Brother will be monitoring every move you make, and your car will be reporting you to the authorities, just like your bank and employer now reports you. Crazy world we're building. We're becoming an anthill. Would be great if we were ants and not human beings.

 

The stereotyping of the average hybrid owners being rich is off the mark. While the average hybrid cost slightly more, as a vehicle class are less expensive to operate so - overall the cost of the average hybrid are about the same or slightly less than an average car (when driven normally). My calculations suggest that the average Prius is paying about $25 less per year in gas tax - other less fuel efficient hybrids are paying more in gas tax and the gas tax savings per year is more like $15 per year. Charging hybrids $75 to $100 per year more than a conventional car is excessive, unfair, and unreasonable. In addition, my observation (atlease here in the DC Area) is that the very rich normally don't drive hybrids and most are driving non hybrid luxury gas guzzlers. The very rich don't need to be fuel efficient - cost is a relative thing - at $4/gallon gas looks cheap when you are making six digit annual income. While hybrids as a vehicle class are not the choice of the very poor they are not the vehicle of choice for the very rich either. Taxing vehicle more just because it is hybrid is not a progressive tax (the rich pay more than the poor). The argument that non-commercial hybrids as a vehicle class (as a group) uses the road much more than conventional gas vehicle is patently false. IF road usage ( aka annual mileage) were really the primary motivation for the recent tax (proposals) to find a revenue source for transportation/road maintenance funding, THEN recent tax proposal would have also suggest higher taxes for all commercial class vehicles which on the average would be driven more miles per year - but this reportedly is not the case. This political trend suggest something more backhanded and disingenuous. I agree with Bob on this thread .. the excessive hybrid taxes are part of a political calculation that an excessive hybrid tax wont cause as much of a political backlash as a smaller incremental tax increase on gas for everyone, increasing the gas guzzler sales tax (for new vehicles), or higher taxes for commercial vehicles.

The legislative pattern to excessively tax alternative energy vehicles suggest a coordinated political campaign/agenda. I would not be surprise to later find out that neocon anti-climate-change oil lobbyists were behind the scenes advocating, funding, writing, and proposing these *transportation* boiler plate bills.

 

Fake history sounds so plausible. Consider that one of the early taxes which started a rebellion requiring Washington to saddle up at the head of the naitonalized state militia was the whiskey tax.

Ah more Ayn Rand fake facts. The taxes become complex when the rich and powerful influence policy to avoid the taxes. As Jefferson noted, one party tends to favor the rich and powerful the other the working people and democracy. Taxing road fuels to pay for roads makes sense, still does. Because oil in particular and carbon use in general needs to be reduced as a matter of national security, taxing gas, Diesel, jet fuel makes even more sense. It should have been the vehicle for financing the 20 years of the Middle East Oil War which has run up $14 in deficits because we did not increaase taxes to pay for the war.

Big business is what tracks you via you cell phone, purchases and web use way more than government. Funny how the Randian ideologues never seem to make that connection yet fantasize about 1984.

Oh dear now the poor ants get it from the right wingers, guess you never heard the old saying it takes a human ant hill to get to the moon, develop world computer net we take for granted, build super colliders, universities, scientific research. Civilization is complex, people are complex, sorry about that but that's life.

Now that we've disposed of the self serving right wing corporate philosopy that has created the US oil mess (inefficient use, environmentally disastrous extraction, $14T in disastrous, losing oil wars, befriending and supporting dicators and terrorists like Saddam and Bin Laden only to have the mother of all blowbacks) we can get back on topic.

Taxing oil use makes sense. Oil use and energy efficiency are the No. 1 national security threat to US.

Taxing energy efficiency and anything that reduces oil use makes no sense. It is a result of the nutty right wing philosopy that is propped up by our largest most profitable corporation, the oil and energy corporations, for their own benefit, to keep oil use high, to keep environmental regulation low so we can have more Exxon Valdez and BP destruction of Gulf of Mexico type disasters along with the slow death of global warming via fossil fuels all to profit oil companies.

Tax oil to pay off the oil war debt.

Tax oil to pay for energy efficiency to cut energy and oil use by 50% in 10 years.

Don't tax the solutions to the problem like hybrids and EV's.

And leave the fake history and Ayn Rand hoo hah at home.

 

Speaking of 'fake history'...I'm not sure I understand the reference.
People in middle America (c. 1790) often used whiskey as a currency or an expression of wealth. This kinda makes sense when you realize that the government wasn't banging out currency at a breakneck speed at this point in our history AND food preservation was in its infancy. In addition to being very durable, whiskey is also a helluva lot more portable than a couple of baskets of corn. People also LIKED to drink the stuff.
A lot.
See also: Beer, Cider and Wine.

So.....
The US had just fought a long expensive war and they were trying to pay off the debt. they needed money. They taxed the whiskey. The people waaaaaaay out on the sharp end of the stick (the ones that were making the whiskey) fought back.
A lot.
Through the use of force...and a lot of negotiating and compromises (which gets left out of many histlry books) Washington (the person) prevailed and the tax remained.
The difference...then and now is that the tax was for revenue generation, not because they were control freaks with an agenda.
The US was in debt (then as now) and they needed the bucks. Well.....they weren't bucks yet...but you get the idea.
The whiskey tax wasn't being used to stop people from drinking whiskey...or because people were too fat...or to stop AGW, which hadn't been invented at the time.
I'm not wild about the hybrid tax because it singles out 1 group disproportionally. This should be a glaring case study in why controlling people through punitive taxes is a poor idea, pun almost unintended.
Taxes should be used for revenue generation.We have laws and regulations (like CAFE standards) to satisfy some folks' irresistible urges to be micro-managers.

History literally IS..."his story." If it were a just word and world.....it would be called 'theirstory'.....but that's not how it turned out.

It's malleable.
You can bend and twist it to make the past [finger quotes] prove your point.

 

...well I also wonder if there is a hidden agenda...but we already know that the EPA/Congress and many vested-interest prononents favor plug-in over hybrids. And FORD is the only US auto maker making any attempt to compete with Toyota on hybrids. Hybrids are under attack and I would like to see US gov't prove me wrong and not let hybrids hang out to dry here.

 

If you accept that hybrids should pay an extra road use tax, then it follows that all high mpg cars should pay this tax, not just hybrids or EVs.

So, if you are doing what is best for the environment you get an extra tax since you aren't paying for the roads as much. (high mpg = extra road tax, low mpg = zero or low road tax)

It should then follow that if you are doing more damage to the environment we should have a tax for that. Low mpg = extra smog tax, high mpg zero of low smog tax.

On the average these taxes will be the same for all mpg values. However, the low mpg vehicles tend to be heavier and cause more road damage...so they should get an extra road use tax.

Mike

 

Car companies and fuel companies are already government regulated oligopolies that are too big to fail. Although I completely agree with you that poor micro-managed regulations hurt the country, I applaud the cafe regulatory changes that are in place through 2025. They get rid of most of the SUV loophole, that encouraged a less efficient fleet. They force the automakers to provide a choice of efficient vehicles. The lack of GM and Chrysler having efficient vehicles available when gas prices rose was a major factor in their bankruptcies. If the government is going to use public money to save these companies when they fail, and these companies appear to lack management with long term planning, I don't see how requreing efficient cars is an over reach. It is the other stuff government regulates here. I certainly would have set different rules, and they would
have been simpler, but the cafe standards are not the problem. The cost of complying with emissions, safety, and dealership regulations add much more to the cost of cars, and these all should be improved.

+1

But certain things, if we actually read the full history, like the whiskey rebellion that you wrote about, or prohibition should help us fight bad government.

 

Are you arguing for more of a convoluted tax, that hits more people. This was proposed as the gps tax. The state would require you to have a gps in your car, then they would hire people to track you. Everyone would pay more as money would have to go to the gps lobby, gps manufacturers, the police, the tax collectors to increase government. In the eyes of those proposing the gps tax, this would be best as it is the most fair, you pay by the mile, and don't get charged for miles out of state. These politicians love the growth of government and taxes, and don't really care about privacy - you have a drivers license we can take away your rights - or costs. I would not be surprised if they proposed added cameras in the cars to see if you were texting, and how many people were in the car.

Smog is not related to mpg. A 30 year old efficient car will likely create more smog than a brand new guzzling SUV. States like mine have annual inspections (starting at 2 years) where smog and mileage could be assessed and used to compute a registration fee. If you are worried that you are paying too much registration because you are polluting other states, instead of the one you live in, who cares. Simple is better than fair and much more expensive. These other programs are aimed at expanding government to pay for road fees, that many states have not raised in a long time. Texas is 1991, and we just build toll roads and add bonds. Some have suggested raising registration fees, raising gas taxes, or adding a guzzler fee to registrations.

Texas also charges higher registration fees for heavier vehicles. Let's face it 18 wheelers cause more road damage. The difference between a 2000lb car and a 4000 lb car doesn't make much difference. The utility for roads is access to them, which can easily be taxed by adjusting registration fees and gas taxes. Creating these special new hybrid or gps taxes are counter productive.

 

I think hybrids are only under attack in virginia, washington, and a few other places. They definitely are favored in california and texas, and state governments own a lot of them. The federal government favors high mpg cars with cafe standards and gas taxes. This does not favor hybrids like the escalade or Lexus LSh, but does the efficient hybrids like prius, camry, fusion, etc.

Federal plug-in tax credits do help fund hybrid R&D to reduce costs of things like electric air conditioning, batteries, and motors.

 

I just have one simple question:

If taxing hybrids is a "right wing" agenda (as stated here by iClaudius and liked by several others), Why is a historically liberal state like WA pursuing or even considering the tax?

IMO, liberals will tax anything they think they can get away with taxing. If you tax those who are in the minority and have money (like most Prius owners and the "1% ers") you will lose very little of your voting base by taxing them. Additionally, you will be able to provide programs that make a majority of voters happy with the revenue gained by taxing the few who can "afford" it.

Lets face it, the average WA voter isn't going to have this issue at the forefront of their mind when they go to vote (because it only affects a small minority of people).

iClaudius is completely wrong in his statements and has no data to support his opinion. His comments are vile and offensive to me and others on this forum.

 

There is absolutely nothing conservative about adding a new tax on hybrids. There is something populist that goes to the worst parts of the republican and democratic parties to tax something the different owns.

I would use the term some democrats and republicans. This is not a liberal tax either, it seems quite the oposite of liberal, conservative, libertarian, or green. It is part of the tax and spend nature of career politicians to add new taxes for a minority they not like. This is both parties, not an ideology.

Worse, the person running against them was likely a tax and spend person from the same party. My state has a problem similar but different. Instead of paying for the new roads that most agree we need, we give special rights to foreign corporations to build toll roads, and issue bonds that we pay for in the future.

That's why I have them blocked. There is nothing partisan about this, as someone from virginia said. The republicans wanted to tax hybrids, the democrats wanted to spend the money, it had bipartisan support in that state.

 

Gosh, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, and set up a number of straw man arguments. Obviously taxes and tax protests are not new; Lady Godiva was a tax protestor. I stand by my assertion that taxes are increasingly intrusive and manipulative; can anyone deny this? It should concern any civil libertarian that the government has access to all of your financial records, and anyone who does business with you is required to inform the government. And the various businesses (credit cards, cell phones, etc) that I transact with may be building databases about me, but at least these are voluntary transactions on my part; it's not the same thing as the government tracking me. I can ditch my cell phone, but I can't disconnect a government-mandated black box.

Anyway, these are big issues, and we're not going to solve them here. I'm just putting in a word for those American ideals of liberty and individualism.

 

I think that would be me who said that (not an exact quote). It was bipartisan, not be equated with good policy.