1.5 cents per mile instead of gasoline tax

And how will that help encourage people to get a more fuel efficient car? If road taxes are down because of higher fuel efficiency, just raise the tax on gas so it effects everyone.

Trucks are cars used by businesses are already getting tax deductions for such uses.
I would not be opposed to incentives like zero percent financing to get low income people out of an older car into a more efficient new or used one.

Golf carts, like bicycles, weigh little in comparison to cars, and travel at much lower speeds. So they put less wear on the pavement.

Those 12 miles is still displacing gasoline, and costing the government lost revenue. For those with at work charging, that may be enough to go zero gas for the week. When it is finally proper to start taxing plug ins for road use, the rates should be graduated based upon EV range for PHVs. For a more personal opinion, I think a PHV that isn't being plugged in should pay more than the vanilla hybrid version. It took more resources and energy to make, and the likely hood that it isn't being plugged is that it was bought for the entitlement of a HOV sticker.

 

Oh, I agree. How does taxing PIPS extra and not ICE Prii encourage people to get the more fuel efficient car?

I agree. I have just heard of a new Federal program that will give you $9,500 for your old car, running or not, on a new PHEV or BEV. The MAXIMUM income is limited to $25K per individual or $50K per couple.

There you just made my point! Road maintenance should be assessed on vehicle weight not relative MPGs. Some States are proposing an additional road maintenance tax on PIPs but not on ICE Prii....even though they weigh essentially the same. In fact, some vehicles like a Hummer,would wind up paying fewer road maintenance taxes.

I love how people want to tax others but exclude themselves! Your car gets around 50 MPGs and most others get around 25 MPGs. "Those 25 miles is still displacing gasoline and costing the government lost revenue." Your hybrid Prius "took more resources and energy to make" than a ICE only vehicle. Yet you think you should be excluded. And for the record, I have never used my HOV stickers, I don't even have them mounted on my car.

I favor collecting road maintenance tax at the pump. This will encourage people to drive "greener" cars even though the government will collect a bit less road maintenance taxes. If that doesn't generate sufficient revenue for road maintenance then raise the taxes at the pump. That will really penalize the Hummer drivers plus charge out of State visitors for their share of road maintenance too.

 

To clarify, if I haven't been, I am against taxing plug ins extra at this time. When they are a meaningful portion of the fleet, they should be taxed for road use. Ideally, the system will take into consideration the sales tax on the electricity they use, and their EV range. Until then, the simplest, and most effective solution for lower revenue from fuel taxes is to increase them.

First, if a plug in road use tax is designed for fairness, the Prius PHV won't be charged more. If the plug is being used, the PHV's gasoline only calculated fuel economy is much better than the Prius, and is paying less now, assuming the taxes on electricity used by the car is less. Done right, a plug in road tax cost won't be high enough to discourage the car's sale for the non-plug in model.

If a person is driving the plug in, but chooses not to plug in, they have chosen to pay more taxes through using more gasoline. I person getting a 4WD truck, but never uses it, doesn't receive a refund of the gas taxes they wouldn't have paid if the truck was the more efficient 2WD version. Most people buy the PHV with the intention of plugging it in, and that does avoid some of road tax they would normally pay.

On a personal note, I 'd like to see this, but I'm talking about a program that would help some one using a retired Taxi Crown Vic get into a newer, more efficient car, even if that car is used. The average registered vehicle age in the US is over 11 years old. For every one year old car, there could be one over 20 years old. Some of these old cars are secondary cars; not used daily. A truck kept around to haul big items or tow, a weekend cruiser, a hobby project car, etc. Some of them are primary cars for some though. I'd like to help get them into something more reliable, safer, more efficient, and emit less pollutants.

Used to its full abilities, the Prius PHV is paying less in fuel taxes than the Prius. The difference in weight between a small car and a minivan isn't enough to lead to major road damage. The minivan driver doesn't get to pay the gas tax of the smaller car when driving alone. When other cars aren't used to their full abilities, and that results in higher costs, the owner doesn't get a break on fuel tax. Neither should PHV owners that choose not to plug in.

I don't think plug ins should be taxed beyond the gasoline and electric taxes they already pay at this point. When they are, they should not pay rates that would be substantially more than the equivalent non-plug in car. Since I don't see a way that taxes between plug ins and non-plug ins can be equally assessed, i say err in favor of the plug ins.

My car gets 37mpg. I do not think a car getting 50mpg should pay the same amount of road use taxes over the same distance. In part because how to do so could get really complicated. A PHV does pay less than a non-plug in with equal MPG rating in road use taxes.

At this time, states and the feds should just raise fuel taxes. Pennsylvania did.

I think many that you are arguing against agree with this.

 

Well I for one am supporting a system that would raise my taxes. Going from $0.30 per gallon to $0.015 per mile would bump my fuel / road taxes from $100 to $225 per year. That would be a extra $125 or a whopping $0.34 per day! I'll pay pennies a day to have better roads.

Let's face it, saving a little bit in fuel taxes isn't going to be the primary reason someone buys a fuel efficient vehicle. That small tax savings is dwarfed by the fuel savings.

 

I think you are trying to win the internet here, but some facts should be brought into play.

You keep on claiming your car is not an ev, well from federal tax rules it is. I'm sure lots would agree with you that its not a BEV, but it does have a plug, it should be getting some of its milage from being plugged in, or that federal tax credit was wasted. I do agree that the prius phv is probably the least capable electric vehicle but you can plug it in, and if you are not plugging it in, why did you buy it. New or used you seem to be arguing that you will drive it improperly to avoid taxes. I don't understand that, but go on with that argument for those that listen to you. I'm sure there are some. But that is the third time I've explained, so simply say you disagree, not that you don't understand.

Yes Oregon agrees with you that a prius should pay the same as a bev or a guzzler on state road taxes.

For Example. A 23 mpg car that goes 15,000 miles per year on oregon bought gasoline now pays $322 in state and federal gas and excise tax, under the new scheme it would go up to $344 in federal gas and mileage tax. A prius would go from $148 to $280. A 14 mpg guzzler would go from $528 to $421. If a phev goes 25% of the miles on the plug and 75% on gas and gets 50 mpg their tax would go from $111 to $166.

That does seem more fair. But as I said I am against the tax because of the added costs of administering the tax. I believe the majority would rather pay a easy to understand lower tax, than a higher tax with potential cheating and growth of government. I also don't like the reach of government to grow and intrude on privacy in the name of fairness. I don't think there is anything good about government excuses to take away rights.

If you don't plug-in you pay more for gasoline. Say instead of a per mile tax we added a $75 additional registration fee for plug-ins. Here if you had a 23 mpg average car in oregon you would still pay $322, if you had a plug-in getting 50 mpg in charge sustain that you never plugged in you would pay $223. If you plugged it in you would pay $186 in gas taxes and registration for road taxes. I think that is the way to go long term. I think you should pay more if you have a plug-in and don't want to plug it in out of spite.

Again I think the numbers of plug-ins are too small to start doing this now, but when there are more this method is prefered over not taxing them at all, or doing a per mile tax for everyone.

 

That's fine, but the Oregon plan reduces the taxes on cars that get less than 20 MPGs. Those cars will see their fuel/road taxes reduced from $225 to $100 per year. It is hardly the way to encourage the public to drive greener, more fuel efficient cars.

 

Isn't it impossible to know what the tax for any particular vehicle will be since there is no way to know how many miles they will travel? One might see a reduction from $225 to $100 while another may be the opposite.

 

Nothing to win and you still want to play.

I'm not trying to avoid tax any more than you are who drives a car that gets double the MPGs as a 25 MPG ICE car. You are paying only half the tax per mile that the other guy is, but you want to tax PIPs extra and exempt yourself.

What I understand is that you want to stick it to PIPs while giving yourself an exemption. Yes, I disagree with that train of thought.

How many times do I have to repeat this? The Oregon plan gives a tax break to cars that get less than 20 MPGs. The Oregon plan also puts a GPS on your car to monitor your every vehicular movement. So simply say you disagree, not that you don't understand.

Here's a better idea, how about if we add an additional $75 registration fee for your Prius because you only pay half the tax per mile of a 23 MPG car. Why do all your plans conveniently exclude yourself? Let's penalize ALL cars that get more than 23 MPGs with an additional $75 registration fee. That is counter intuitive to reaching government clean air standards.

 

How about every vehicle pays at the pump when they buy fuel, at whatever the going rate per gallon, based on the state or national average consumption. Someone driving a Hummer or F-250 or whatever will pay more taxes through consumption. Prius, Civic, Corolla and other drivers will pay less due to choosing an economical vehicle. Vehicles that don't purchase fuel at the pump will pay through some other mechanism, at a rate commensurate with the state or national average consumption. Nobody is singled out to be penalized with a "special" fee and everyone pays for their privilege of using the roads.

 

Finally, a proposal that makes sense! Thank you!

 

Pretty much the same thing all along, just worded differently so it resonates better.

 

Most people have an idea of how many miles they drive in a year.

 

Yes, people know how many miles they drive, but few know how many miles others drive, beyond perhaps their spouse/partner and a few very close others. My point was how can a blanket statement be made that 20mpg cars are going to have a specific monetary change.

 

I have a 2004 Astro Van rated at 16 mpg. If I drive the typical 15,000 miles per year that is 937.5 gallons of fuel. At $0.30 per gallon that is $281.25 in gasoline taxes. 15,000 miles @ $0.015 per mile is $225. So that would be a savings of $56.25 in taxes per year. Pocket change compared to the $2343.75 required to buy 937.5 gallons of gasoline at $2.50 per gallon

I don't care about encouraging the public to drive more fuel efficient car using the tax code. I want to fund road construction and maintenance.

 

You can fund all the road construction and maintenance you like, but if you don't have clean air to breathe and your health is compromised or if fuel is rationed or goes to $10/g. at some time in the future because of dwindling resources, you will begin to feel differently about that.

 

Because things like tax policy are too big to deal in individuals when discussing it, and making changes without a clue about the impact would be irresponsible. On average, a car is driven 12k to 15k miles a year. If there is a switch from fuel tax to a per mile tax, and assuming it's set to be revenue neutral, the efficient car owner will be paying more, and the less efficient one less, on average.

There will be cases that lie outside the average, but they will have a smaller impact on revenue collected under either system, and bringing them up would likely be as a distraction on either side of the politics.

 

That is kind of funny because my wife and I recently moved from Alabama to Oregon and a significant factor was air quality and health. My wife developed asthma while we lived in TN and AL due to the very poor air quality. (Both cities we lived in were EPA non attainment areas with air pollution above the legal limit) Air pollution from vehicles is linked to the emission equipment fitted and the requirement to keep that equipment in working order. The Portland metro has required emission inspection for vehicles, both the previous locations did not. It is rare to see a car in Portland trailing a cloud of blue smoke while it was pretty common in Birmingham.

Low fuel consumption is not always linked to low emissions. As an example here are emission levels from two vehicles with very different fuel economy. You have a Honda motorcycle that gets about 50 mpg and a GM SUV that gets 15.

Long Overdue - SMOG check on motor cycles | PriusChat​

The motorcycle pumps out 8 times the smog forming emissions as as the SUV

As to $10 per gallon gasoline that time will come. The only question is how long that will take. We purchased a house 1 mile from the MAX commuter train partially as an hedge against future fuel costs and congestion. (It is also nice to take the train into town and not have to worry about fighting traffic or finding parking). My wife is 5 miles from work (she rides her bike some days), my work is less than a mile from a train station. Yes, that was planned, I didn't apply to plenty of good jobs that had long commutes or were too far away from public transportation.

 

Of course not, but there is a distinct and undeniable correlation. So contrary to your previous statement you do care about air quality and fuel efficient vehicles. The Oregon plan does not encourage fuel efficient cars by increasing the tax on them. It will be an unmitigated disaster, in my opinion.

 

It's a government program. That automatically spells disaster.