Comments on: Gov. Bob McDonnell and the hybrid owners’ penalty

By: Donald Walsh

Donald Walsh — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:49:00 +0000

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

By: moma

moma — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:12:42 +0000

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.

By: Bill Carstenen

Bill Carstenen — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:43:19 +0000

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.

By: Norris

Norris — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:19:03 +0000

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.

By: Art Hill

Art Hill — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:32:18 +0000

“No one gets out of here alive. That was a good one.”

I’ll tell Jim when I see him.

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:59:08 +0000

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.

By: scott

scott — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:34:43 +0000

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.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:20:01 +0000

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.

By: Art Hill

Art Hill — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:14:47 +0000

“Now, you seem to just fire off smart ass comments. “

Thanks! I do what I can.

By: Another Chuck

Another Chuck — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:55:34 +0000

““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?