Gov. Bob McDonnell and the hybrid owners’ penalty
qJake | Wikimedia Commons
Note from Dan: Lots of people have been wondering why on Earth Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to kill the gas tax, but at the same time implement a new $100 a year tax on hybrids. I simply assumed some cynics in a Richmond conference room came up with this idea after one of them said, “How can we stick it to those environmentally conscious wackos who never vote for us?” But Bill Carstensen of Blacksburg has given it more thought.
By Bill Carstensen
I have been searching for a good reason that we hybrid owners should pay more to register our vehicles than others under the new “no gas tax” plan (gee, that sounds a lot like “no car tax” doesn’t it? That certainly went well for the state treasury).
Here is the plan’s logic as I see it:
Spread the cost of building and maintaining roads to all who spend money in the state through a sales tax increase and a removal of the state gas tax. I can go for that, at least in principle, as we all benefit from roads whether we use them personally or not. Someone uses them to bring us most of what we own and what we eat. For added revenue, charge a bit more to everyone who registers a vehicle in Virginia. I can also see that plan as we all should pay toward the roads we drive on through registration fees.
And, best of all, for more added revenue, charge a special rate of $100 per year to those who have made the decision to drive hybrid or electric vehicles (Virginia was 8th nationally in such registrations in 2009 so I am certainly not alone here). So, let’s try to understand the economics of the last part of this decision.
You have people who have chosen to help with the following, documented and understood (admittedly not all are politically agreed upon) physical and social issues by becoming more fuel efficient:
• We put too much CO2 into the atmosphere every day and the majority of Americans believe that it is affecting our climate;
• Americans spend too much of our money on imports and have a terrible trade imbalance – petroleum is a big part of that at $327 billion in 2011; and
• We complain daily about the price of gasoline at the pump and wish we could spend less without decreasing our mobility (“Hey, let’s look at a hybrid for our next new purchase?” What an idea – oh no, wait – the Commonwealth of Virginia sees our little game there and is fixing it).
So people are penalized for choosing a (dare I say “progressive”) technology that has proven itself valuable for 10 years now and is manufactured by both foreign and US automakers alike because:
a) “Hybrid owners do not buy enough gas to keep up with the Commonwealth’s highway needs at the current rates, so we would have to raise gas taxes to account for them.” We certainly wouldn’t want the drivers of low mileage pickups, vans and Hummers to suffer. They already suffer since gas is so expensive and their choice of vehicles has put an unfair burden on them for many years. OH, BUT WAIT, the plan just removed the gas tax so we no longer care who buys how much gas. I guess that argument doesn’t work.
Or:
b) “Hybrid owners have not been paying enough gas tax historically as they have bought less gas for many years now.” So, we need to collect $100 a year rebates from hybrid owners to make up for their skimpy past contributions.
I guess “B” must be the logic. It’s a penalty on the persons who have bought high-mileage vehicles to save money or help the environment or reduce dependency on foreign oil, or to meet any and all of those goals. They have been beating the system for years now – especially those who have gone so far as to buy vehicles that do not use only gasoline.
Let’s be sure that there is not a financial incentive, lets even go so far as a disincentive, to purchase a hybrid in Virginia, especially for those on more limited incomes for whom the $100 would make the largest difference, the same persons for whom the gas savings would make the most sense economically.
In the final analysis, only driving “regressive,” low mileage older technology vehicles deserves a tax break! Do I sense another “only in Virginia” moment coming on? Well, at least my hybrids will burn no gas while stopped waiting in long lines to pay tolls on the state’s new toll roads!
January 28, 2013 - 6:00 AM
How dare you “beat the system”. That comment really hit home for me. It is exactly how our government officials, republican and democrat, think. You think you are making a responsible choice. They think you are trying to “beat the system”. Just another Bizzaro World moment from our elected officials.
What next from these briliant folks. They will charge me an extra water charge for bying a front loading washer. Pentalize me for using cfl and led lighting. This is one dumb revenue producer.
Dont worry Bill and Dan. You will find out how the new “Hybrid Tax” affects you once it is passed. Stop complaining about it and trying to use logic. Just keep your mouth closed and pay your fair share.
You guys should feel lucky just to have enough money to be able to afford a hybrid. As someone who does not own a hybrid, I think it is very fair that you guys get another tax. If you can afford a hybrid you MUST be able to afford another tax. You are obviously “rich”. I mean….why should I have to pay more for gas than you? And the world will still be here when WE die right….so CO2 emissions is really a theoretical argument… hmmmmm
Or maybe it could be that a hybrid or a battery-powered car have larger overall carbon footprints during the life of the vehicle in comparison to a standard gasoline vehicle in countries with mainly coal power plants.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/06/lowcvp-20110608.html
FYI, many localities in the northern US are banning outside wood burning stoves due to “EPA” issues. The opponents claim that the fire does not burn hot enough and causes pollution problems yet these stoves are dampened to only burn when needed rather than burning constantly. The controlled dampening uses less wood and is much more efficient. So where is the problem? With the outdoor stove you can provide heat, hot water, and hot air potential for items like clothes dryers, etc. The local, state, and federal gov’ts have a hard time taxing such an item so it’s easier to just ban them.
The Libertarian in me agrees 100% that hybid owners should not be taxed for NOT using gas. But, I do have to question why these “green” folks don’t want to pay their “fair share.” As President Obama told business owners, “You didn’t build that!” The goverment needs the money green people. Pay up!
Hey Dano,
I saw you had mentioned my name in a previous blog and had no idea you thought so highly of me as to include me in one of your argumentative disclaimers. Thank you for the shout-out! But you seemed to slander me which hurt my feelings so now I think you may be a bully, which is practically unheard of on the political left! Remember, I am part of your internet currency as I give you page views… which in turn keeps you in business (and on your soapbox:)). At least allow me to be part of the conversation so I can defend myself Mr. Casey. That is all at this time. Good day.
“The Libertarian in me agrees 100% that hybid owners should not be taxed for NOT using gas.”
–Comment by Another Chuck
AC, do you believe building codes are an unwarranted government intrusion into our daily lives?
craig, Roanoke Gas is already charging us more for not using enough gas the past two winters.
Nothing like penalizing the behavior you should be driving.
“What next from these briliant folks.Pentalize me for using cfl and led lighting. This is one dumb revenue producer.
Comment by craig — January 28, 2013 @ 8:24 am”
This is already being done to you. AEP continuously raises your fees every year with price hikes, effectively negating any amount you try to save by using less energy. Going to replace all your bulbs to save money? That’s okay, AEP will institute a few price hikes to regain any money you attempted to save.
“If you can afford a hybrid you MUST be able to afford another tax.
Comment by PP — January 28, 2013 @ 8:57 am ”
Go look at 2013 new car prices.
A new Toyota Prius is cheaper than any new Ford truck that guzzles much more gas in comparison.
The hybrids aren’t any more expensive than most models and are continuing to come down in price.
AC, do you believe building codes are an unwarranted government intrusion into our daily lives?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 28, 2013 @ 10:17 am
No, they are good for public safety. But, there is a fine line between over regulation and the promotion of commerce which produces the tax dollars for the regulators to begin with. For the most part, I believe the local governments do a decent job of striking that balance. I find “building codes” to be necessary government. I will give you 2 examples of unnecesary or redundant government at the Federal level. Department of Energy and Department of Education.
Dylan, welcome back!
“hybrid owners’ penalty”
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Hybrid owners have already penalized themselves by riding around in
those geeky little cars.
They make themselves the object of public attention and sarcastic
humor.
Hybrid owners may be saving the planet but they still use the public
highways and in as much, they should pay their “fair” share for highway use.
“The hybrids aren’t any more expensive than most models ”
Still, the cost of driving an electric car makes a Prius look like a booger. IIRC the latest electrics average out to less than 10 cents(purchase price, fuel and repairs) a mile over their estimated lifetime.
I average 32 mpg in my car that I purchased for $2,700. Prius can’t beat that cost per mile.
Gee, Rob, you mean geeky little hybrids like the Tahoe, Yukon and Escalade?
“Hybrid owners may be saving the planet but they still use the public highways and in as much, they should pay their “fair” share for highway use.”
Umm, Rob, we’re talking about McD’s harebrained scheme to eliminate the gas tax for EVERYBODY but put a $100 tax on hybrids only. So what you’re actually in favor of is hybrid owners paying MORE than their fair share. Weird.
Weird Rob, I see someone in a Prius and I automatically assume they’re of above average intelligence. Sort of the way I see someone in a Hummer and subtract 10 iq points.
Put a $100 dollar per year special tax on hybrid vehicles only? Apparently Guvna Bobby McDonnell did not listen to his pal Guvna Bobby Jindal just last week:
“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,” he said.
http://www.exponent-telegram.com/web_exclusive/us/article_905e5ec0-810c-5285-835b-7a6d0cc28c33.html
This tax cannot be defended. It is interesting watching some of you try though. Hybrid owners are doing us all a favor and this is a terrific slap in the face. I love how it is twisted to be about “fair share”, that is too funny!
Only 10 points, Kristen? You’re far more generous than I am. (OTOH, they probably don’t have more than 10 points to spare to begin with.)
Guess some folks don’t understand “tongue-in-cheek”.
Electric transport is the wave of the future.
As sales increase price will decrease.
Rob, LOL. Around here it’s sometimes difficult to pick out the satirical from the genuine.
OK, what if you drive a 100% electric car, and never use gas. You pay tax on the electricity, obviously.
But is there a 100% direct link from the gas tax to road maintenance and upkeep? If there is, then electric car users should definitely have a portion of their electricity tax routed toward road maintenance.
If they are providing wear and tear on the roads (and granted its not nearly as much as a F-150 and all, but it does some measurable amount) but not paying for it, then I see no problem charging an extra fee. Why should someone driving a Mazda3 have to pay the gas tax and someone driving a 100% electric vehicle not, when both exact roughly the same wear and tear on the road?
Nope, I missed it.
Given the pricetag I have seen on hybrid vehicles it is my guess that any shortfall in gasoline tax is made up at purchase via the sales tax. Just a thought.
““You didn’t build that!””
Jeebus, are you still harping on that? On second thought, keep it up…
““You didn’t build that!””
Jeebus, are you still harping on that? On second thought, keep it up…
Comment by Art Hill — January 28, 2013 @ 4:50 pm
Art, the Obama quote was rehashed to point out that he could be a proponent of taxing Prius owners paying a use tax to be applied to infrastructure. Art, I miss the old days when you used to lecture the board on how our debt and deficits don’t matter. Now, you seem to just fire off smart ass comments. Why don’t you consider adding something to the discussion?
“Now, you seem to just fire off smart ass comments. “
Thanks! I do what I can.
I don’t think the point of the fee is for “providing wear and tear on the roads”. If he is eliminating the gas tax, no other gas fueled vehicle will be paying for “providing wear and tear on the roads” so why Hybrids or Electric cars? This is specious on every level. This is specifically an extra tax on the very vehicles that are being the most responsible with resources and pollution. It is a sincere and complete slap in the face to the entire green initiative, which is the whole point IMO.
Well, I guess I should amend my statement to it’s true meaning, in that I don’t support the gas tax being abolished.
However, I do support that those who use public roads should be paying for their upkeep, and thats largely based on some form of tax. If the upkeep is solely paid from fuel tax, then yes, I would expect electric vehicles and Prii (Yes, That’s Toyota’s official pluralization of Prius) to pay more of a tax simply due to less fuel consumption. Similarly, Large vehicles such as Semi’s Suburbans, and other vehicles that get poor gas mileage would be paying less in gas tax per unit because they use more gas overall.
That said… The impact of each of these vehicles is not equal. A Semi or a Dump Truck tears up a road a lot more than a Prius or a Mazda3. Some factor would have to be figured in to account for this. Enter your annual car property tax. You drive a very light car that has little to no impact on the roads or environment? you pay little property tax. You drive something that proudly gets 8 mpg and has no catalytic converter and spits out terrible exhaust fumes? You pay a hefty property tax. Unlike now, where old beaters barely pay any property tax, but brand new cars pay $200-$400 a year (at least).
In theory, this would be an effective and fair system to pay for road upkeep.
The theory breaks when you think about how the cost of massive projects such as the complete mangling of the DC Beltway in VA to account for Metro Expansion to Ashburn and how people down near Wytheville will barely ever use such project. In essence they’re funding something they will never use. But then again, we are doing that now anyway.
This has little to do with “Green” and “Pollution” as much as it does have to do with Wear and Tear, though I will admit Pollution does have some effect on the upkeep of roads. And if you want to get technical, I bet the lack of pollution allows the grass to grow faster on the side of interstates, causing a higher cost of upkeep.
I’m not siding with McDonnell, I can just see the point behind charging EV owners a tax so that they are paying their share of road upkeep costs. Ron, The increased cost of the hybrid cars do not go to road upkeep but to corporate coffers to pay for the engineering, design, advanced technology and profit margins of the companies.
You’re welcome, Art. Keep up the good work! ( that was a smart ass comment ). I did like your comment the other day that said, the world is a dangerous play.. No one gets out of here alive. That was a good one.
“No one gets out of here alive. That was a good one.”
I’ll tell Jim when I see him.
If you remove the gas tax you are failing a chance to collect from those out of state drivers who come in here and tear up our roads too. Not smart.
Actually, hybrid owners do pay up – their cars are typically more expensive to purchase, so we end up with a sales tax that is greater than some alternatives.
Are you kidding me Rich ! you don’t have to be rich to purchase a hybrid. there is something call trade you old vehicle or down payment. I don’t agree with this tax. There are plenty of non hybrid cars that are keeping up with hybrid mpgs or damn near close. Lets get real and find a better solution.
You ignore 2 main areas.SUVS Hummers trucks pollute more shouldn’t there be a pollution and carbon tax and there are many high mileage vehicles that get comparable mileage to hybrids that are not taxed.
Also there are hybrid owners who voted for McDowell,I know some,I expect this will change if he runs for anything else.This fee is discriminatory
Also shouldn’t we be providing incentives to have less wear on roads and less air pollution. Now we have removed any incentive SUVs,trucks and hummers are heavier and have more wear on road,but now lighter weight and only lighter weight hybrids and electric will pay to maintain roads.Also a good part of gas tax comes from out of state drivers. We just let them off the hook. The whole bill is beyond stupid,but that is what Republicans have become,the stupid party