Featured Wisconsin yet again moving to add a special tax for Prius hybrids and plug ins

Tell me who (lead legislator) to write email to and I will send the same thing I sent to Tennsessee.

 

It’s a little late for that now. The budget bill was signed last week.

Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald (R)

Assembly leader Robin Vos (R)

As for who proposed the initial idea, no one knows publicly.

 

Has the Governor approved it yet? Maybe I start at the top.

 

He signed the budget.

 

Yes,

I’d still like to see what info you sent to Tennessee though.

 

Me too

 

Here it is - he responded too.
>>OK I just sent a version to Gov. Scott Walker's office

"Dear Sen. Green-

I was active in the repeal of the Virginia Hybrid Fees. Here is my view on it:
First of all, we have to define our terms:

There are 3 classes of electric drive vehicles-
(1) Hybrids (100% gasoline - no tax credits for purchase)
(2) All-Electric Plug-Ins (100% electric - large tax credit for purchase)
(3) Plug-In Hybrids (Gaso+Elec - large tax credit for purchase)

Regarding 100% gasoline fuel hybrids, it is unfair to punish regular Hybrids for extra taxes. For example, you will end up with 25 MPG hybrids (eg; Highlander Hybrid) being taxed extra, and 25 MPG non-hybrids not being taxed extra.

In Toyota's words, the fuel taxes should be "technology neutral" within the 100% gasoline fuel class. In other words, why charge a hybrid extra, but not charge an aluminum F150 extra? It should be immaterial what's under the hood, as long as the vehicles all fuel up at the same gas station.

If you want to say all higher MPG cars owe more fuel taxes, that's a fair approach (assuming the system is properly designed). A fair system has been suggested in New Hampshire, where there is a proposal to tax all cars over about 25 MPG with an extra fee, prorated by MPG. Basically keeping everyone even on fuel tax. But I assume that might be a difficult argument to make to the public.

As far as electric plug-ins, there is a general consensus that a modest fee is reasonable. That's a different story. Plug-ins are using alternate fuel and it is fair to ask them to contribute to avoided road taxes. I am not a plug-in owner, but if present, they would ask for the gift of lower fees for the short term to help get the new technology started.

In Virginia we do charge a modest fee to Plug-Ins. Our ill-designed hybrid fee was revoked after 1-year.

Regards, Bill in Virginia"

 

why reward low mpg vehicles? what purpose does that serve?

 

It superficially serves their rural base. Beyond that it requires no 'purpose' to drive it - rationality and long term benefit or harm to society don't enter into these folk's thought processes...

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

If we charged fuel taxes on miles driven, is basically what some people want as the basis.
So if you charged a little extra to vehicles over 25 MPG that is same idea.
Not saying I like it, but it is one valid approach.

 

i don't follow. miles driven is a user tax. high mpg's is a 'green tax'? other than pandering to a certain voter base, wouldn't simply raising the gas tax fix the problem?

 

25 MPG car @12000 mile/year @ state tax 35 cents/gal = $168/yr taxes for 12000 miles
50 MPG car = $84/yr for 12000 miles

So you charge that 50 MPG guy $84 bucks extra to make sure he pays the same tax for the same 12000 miles driven.
Nobody has implemented that, so it is academic, but that would be the fair way to tax Prius and *all* cars that get better MPG.
It is not fair to single out Prius Hybrids for extra fees (sort of racist) but you could fairly charge *all* cars over 25 MPG

 

i don't see why every vehicle should pay the same tax. heavier vehicles should pay more, and people who drive more should pay more. that is fair in my eyes. i guess that's why we have politicians.

 

Yes, temporarily. But as the world moves more toward electrification and better fuel economy, there are likely to be fewer low MPG cars to fund the gas tax. In order to generate a continuing revenue stream along the same lines as a usage tax, the state would need to establish a pay-to-drive turnpike, like other states have done.

 

There's road occupation and road wear as separate cost factors. Hovercraft suspension will have essentially zero road wear. I'm ready

 

How about making the use of the tax more efficient first.

 

In my opinion, the US (and each State) Government was designed to be inefficient. Not to get too political, but I doubt we're going to improve much on that front. But I agree that for tax purposes, more efficient money use would be nice.

 

Crazy talk!

.

 

Easy to say, but extremely difficult to do. There are little things here and there. But in general practice it is not realistic.

We have an economic problem with the funding formula. It relies to heavily on economic growth. Based on the current model. You would need to add 60-70% more vehicles and population. To cover current shortfalls. This would only exacerbate the road wear problems. Also another factor that people don’t take into account is Climate zone. Roads is the upper midwest have a much shorter lifespan due to freeze and thaw cycles and road salt.

 

i agree, but if we start taxing the high mpg cars now, we are only delaying the inevitable, and hurting both the environment, and geopolitical concerns.
i would prefer to get over the other side of the bell curve on ev's, then start the user tax, or whatever it may be.