VA Gov. McDonnell to eliminate gas tax, tax alternative fuel vehicles instead

[leftysergeant]

What about the buses that are nearly empty?

Around rush hour, there are not that many. If the country were not so laid out that you need a car to get anywhere within a reasonable time frame, there would be fewer empty seats. There are still people who need to get from one place to another outside of normal commuting times. To not run buses would be to strand these people or force them to drive.

So? Those roads still need to exist.

So what? Those who make the most use of them or derive the most income from their existence, or who do the most damage to them should pay the most for them.

How do you presume to know what people use their SUVs for? If you see me driving my SUV alone can you see the hundreds of pounds of tools I need to have with me at work? Do you see the equipment I have to occasionally tow? The lumber, doors, and other stuff I often have to haul?

Whatever you use it for, you are doing more damage to the road than I do on the short trips I make in my Chevy Corsica, and I am sure you make a lot more money on the business end of the trip, and without question, create more pollution just by the abrasion of your tires and brake pads.

Ad valorem vehicle taxes are a sick joke. They should be taxed on a weight-to-horsepower and gross weight basis.

Probably you don't, and just cluck your disapproval from your bus seat based on incorrect assumptions.

Personnally, I reserve that contempt for the arrogant jackass who drives a polished and tricked-out main battle tank to work at an office every day and then uses it to run down to the store for the odd case of beer and load of chips and dips.

 

[Lowpro]

I'll ask again: Do you believe that there is a clear need to aggressively reduce fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible?

*headdesks so hard Japan's bracing for the incoming tsunami*

Dude I actually put a bit of effort into my last post to you. I even took your points along with my own and submitted a question regarding the effect of the gas tax's externalities with respect to curbing use to the governer through his website.

But this is what you want to focus on? You want so hard to promote the gas tax because of it's externalities you won't even have a discussion at all on anything else OTHER than the gas tax including the logos of the tax itself along with possible externalities like the revenue you'd gather by folding it into the SUT which would support rail and other initiatives that would also provide benefits to the environment by reducing exhaust. You won't discuss the efficacy of increasing the gas tax with respect to its intended purpose because you're focusing on the externality. You want to know whether I myself think that an aggressive stance should be taken to reduce global climate change?

You know what, I have an answer and I don't want to tell you. I'm hoping that by not giving you this answer we can end your stupid charade and you can address my previous post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that alternative fuel vehicles haven't been paying already.

Here petrol cars pay a per litre tax, but everyone else (diesel, electric, LPG, CNG, etc) pay Road User Charges based on mileage (kilometreage?) so everyone pays regardless of what you drive.

Personally I would have thought the best idea would be buy a number of miles/kilometres with the cost of those dependant of the class of vehicle and that way everyone pays according to what they use.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, and in my area not only does every rider pay but there are also taxes paying for the buses. If only buses and trains were left, there would obviously be money available to pay for roads for those buses.

Where would the money come from? Not a gasoline tax, because there are no cars in your scenario. So likely you'd need a sales tax to pay for the roads and to keep the buses running (fares only account for 30% or so of bus/train costs).

I added my disclaimer. You did read my post, right?

I have never proposed getting rid of all roads.

You did claim that some people were less dependent on them than others, or used them more. I've pointed out this isn't the case. We are all equally dependent on roads.

I was fairly specific when I made my SUV reference; no one person needs an SUV just to get to and from work - certainly not in an urban setting and really not anywhere in paved America.

Paved roads catch snow too you know, and I already pointed out that I actually do need an SUV for work. I could get a truck instead, but then I'd also need a car. And it's illegal to park a truck overnight in most parts of Chicago, so an SUV was a much better choice. Plus a work truck is an obvious target for tool thieves, whereas my SUV hides its role as a work vehicle much better. Tinted windows so you can't see inside, no obvious tool boxes and such.

The issue of roads is much like schools, just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you don't benefit from the schools. We don't charge different property tax rates based on the number of school age children you have. Likewise just because you don't have a car doesn't mean you don't benefit from roads. Everyone should pay for them.

 

[WildCat]

Around rush hour, there are not that many. If the country were not so laid out that you need a car to get anywhere within a reasonable time frame, there would be fewer empty seats. There are still people who need to get from one place to another outside of normal commuting times. To not run buses would be to strand these people or force them to drive.

So what? Those who make the most use of them or derive the most income from their existence, or who do the most damage to them should pay the most for them.

Whatever you use it for, you are doing more damage to the road than I do on the short trips I make in my Chevy Corsica, and I am sure you make a lot more money on the business end of the trip, and without question, create more pollution just by the abrasion of your tires and brake pads.

Ad valorem vehicle taxes are a sick joke. They should be taxed on a weight-to-horsepower and gross weight basis.



Personnally, I reserve that contempt for the arrogant jackass who drives a polished and tricked-out main battle tank to work at an office every day and then uses it to run down to the store for the odd case of beer and load of chips and dips.

So do you also think only people with children should pay school taxes, just to be consistent with your reasoning? The more kids you have in school, the higher tax you pay?

 

[Checkmite]

I would have no problem with a duty being imposed on alternative-fuel vehicles to compensate for the fact that they use the roads but don't help pay for them; but why shift the burden completely off of normal gasoline vehicles and onto alternative vehicles? Doesn't that just flip the problem - now millions of gasoline vehicles are using the roads without paying for them? Surely there aren't enough alternative fuel vehicles actually on the road that this switch can possibly make up any of the decreasing money.

It seems to me the only possible reasoning behind this specific course of action is spite for alternative vehicles because they're alternative vehicles. It creates a clearly "approved" class of vehicles and a penalty for choosing a different class.

 

[Lowpro]

Nah the fee itself is for:

While the governor’s plan will eliminate the Virginia gasoline tax, the federal gas tax of 18.5 cents will
remain. The majority of federal gas tax revenues are returned to the states for transportation projects,
and Virginia typically receives approximately $1 billion per year in federal gas tax revenue. And the
more alternative fuel vehicles on the road, the less of a share Virginia will get of that federal tax.
 Therefore, the governor’s plan proposes an additional $100 fee for alternative fuel vehicles to ensure
that these drivers continue to contribute to Virginia’s transportation networks, which they use every day.

- Over the next five years, this fee will generate:
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 5-Year Total
$10.2 $11.4 $13.0 $15.0 $17.0 $66.6

So yea...not quite that whole "spite" thing you're speculating...

The purpose of the fee was to compensate for revenue returns. 27 states already have fees on alternative fuel vehicles for the same reasons. This is nothing new.

Therefor the burden wasn't shifted off the gasoline drivers onto alternative fuel drivers. Instead the burden was shifted onto all of those who purchase products that are taxed under the SUT. That's probably going to be most all Virginians. The gas tax will remain on diesel fuel in order to tax interstate truckers who don't pay the SUT of Virginia because they're interstate truckers.

I really recommend reading this. It'll keep you from making false speculations.

 

[Checkmite]

But the $100 fee is a state fee. Yes, Virginia will get some of the federal tax money returned; but that was true before this change, and doesn't explain why the state gasoline tax had to be eliminated. If the tax burden was shifted onto "everybody who purchases products taxed under the SUT", then that already covers the alternative fuel drivers along with everyone else; there should be no need for an additional $100 a year solely for those drivers and no tax on any other kind of driver.

 

[WildCat]

But the $100 fee is a state fee. Yes, Virginia will get some of the federal tax money returned; but that was true before this change, and doesn't explain why the state gasoline tax had to be eliminated.

Because if you keep it you will have to constantly tweak it to maintain revenue, which may or may not be politically possible in the future. Better to just solve the problem once and for all with the SUT.

 

[jj]

I would have no problem with a duty being imposed on alternative-fuel vehicles to compensate for the fact that they use the roads but don't help pay for them; but why shift the burden completely off of normal gasoline vehicles and onto alternative vehicles?

For the same reason that renewable energy sources like wind are widely reviled, with astroturfing "concern groups" making preposterously false accusations against them, all the while griping about the "subsidies" and not ever admitting that their buddies from the coalfield get even more subsidies.

The goal of some of these lobbying groups, astroturfing groups, etc, is clearly to eliminate any threat to their own source of profit.

Look at Germany, look how much of their power is solar. And Germany is, by (*&(, CLOUDY.

I support the idea of turning Arizona and New Mexico deserts into the power source for the USA. Just that, plus transmission lines, would have a 20 year benefit to everyone, but no, what we hear is "impractical". It's hardly impractical if a country that actually still teaches and pays engineers and scientists can do it in 5 years, now, isn't it?

Sorry, the USA is turning into a backwater, luddite feifdom. This kind of dishonest shifting of the burden arises directly from that intent.