Washington state may introduce MPG-based car taxes
Legislators in Washington state want to put the hurt on people who buy vehicles that consume more fuel by charging a new annual tax that's weighted in inverse proportion to the vehicle's EPA fuel economy ratings. The more fuel a vehicle uses, the more it will cost the driver to register the vehicle. The tax would help restore some of the revenue that has been lost due to apparently falling gasoline sales in the state as prices have risen. Of course anti-tax advocates in the state are not pleased about the plan and complain that lower-income drivers that can't afford newer higher-mileage cars will be inordinately punished. While the goals of tax plan are laudable, the implementation is problematic. Perhaps some kind of tax break for lower income drivers to help with the purchase of more efficient vehicles might have a greater impact by getting some of the older vehicles off the road entirely. There is also the issue of calculating a tax based on the EPA mileage numbers, when those numbers have changed due to new test procedures. Identical vehicles from the 2007 and 2008 model years may have the same real-world mileage with different EPA numbers. Why should the owner of the 2008 model have to pay more? In future years those numbers are likely to change again as test procedures are modified to take into account the behavior of various plug-in vehicles.
[Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 1:27PM (2/09/2008)
Will this replace the property tax, or is it just another NEW tax?
Reply
1985 Gripen 1:50PM (2/09/2008)
While I don't know if I agree with this plan politically, I wanted to address the issue raised about whether someone buying a 2008 model would be taxed more than someone who bought a 2007 model.
The EPA's website shows BOTH the fuel economy using the 2007 and 2008 standard for cars older than 2008.
This tax plan sounds a lot like some in European countries. In some European countries they tax you based on the displacement (in liters) of your car so if, for example, you buy a 2-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder car you get taxed less than if you bought the 3.2-liter 6-cylinder (I think Italy is like that).
In other countries they tax based on CO2 output.
While I'm sure the legislators in Washington state have good intentions, they need to remember everything has unintended consequences. They could end up hurting their citizens while doing very little for the planet overall.
People shouldn't be pushed toward buying one product or the other. We used to take "freedom" pretty seriously in this country...
Reply
kballs 3:12PM (2/09/2008)
This is really really dumb and shows that politicians and councilmen make horrible decisions with no root in reality.
Increasing the license tax for low MPG cars pushes more people into higher-MPG cars, leading to higher average miles driven per gallon, leading to lower gas tax revenue per mile driven, which is exactly what this purports to fix... but supposedly the citizens wouldn't yell about it like a gas tax increase.
M-O-R-O-N-S
We also already have the highest gas tax in the country, but if the revenue really is declining (and not just growing at a slower rate than they think they need) they need to increase it more. Also the effect of the tax dollars are being eroded because road maintenance costs are going up with inflation (and the gas tax has not). If they want to encourage high-MPG vehicles, they need to increase the gas tax, not tax based on vehicle capability (no matter how much or little it's driven), and NOT use a GPS tracking system (taxing everyone equally per-mile no matter how much damage they do to the roads).
The biggest problem though: they don't use all of the gas tax and license revenues for roads and transportation, they divert much of it to other things. They need to fix that before they talk of any increases or new taxes, especially when they've been running big overall state tax surpluses for the last 3-4 years.
Reply
dhofmann 3:24PM (2/09/2008)
Make the tax revenue-neutral. Either lower taxes on the poor or put the money raised into public transportation.
Reply
Tim 4:10PM (2/09/2008)
All new taxes are earmarked for "special" projects like education, transportation etc, but immediately after the tax increase has passed, the socialists redirect the tax money into the general fund so they can use it to pay off their supporters. The morons who vote for these increases fall for this ploy over and over again.
Liberals are SUCKERS!
Reply
Throwback 4:52PM (2/09/2008)
So the people are driving less, creating less pollution and using less imported oil. The politicians don't like this because it means lower tax revenues. So they decide to penalize people, for doing what they want the citizens to do, drive less! Is there any wonder why we hate taxes in this country?
Reply
Bob 9:47PM (2/09/2008)
The easiest solution is to raise the gas tax. If you raise it people will drive less and buy smaller vehicles. CAFE will not make people drive smaller or drive less. Put the tax money into mass transit and repair the roads.
Reply
QuantumLeap 10:36PM (2/09/2008)
kballs, you need to get off the pipe. Your reasoning is absolutely retarded.
Reply
Nathan 2:45AM (2/10/2008)
The real problem with Washington State is that it is basically two seprate states. There is the West side, which is overwhelmingly liberal, higher income and has mass transit available (though not the best).
Then there is the East side, majority conservative (though lower population in total) more blue collar workers, lower wages, more urban sprawl and lots of agriculture / timber industry.
Those on the west enjoy the benefit of tax dollars from gas and vehicle registration almost immediately while those of us on the east side get shafted repeatedly. We drive more per capita than the more population dense west side which means even with our lower population we still produce 40% of all the tax revenue, yet we only get about 15% of it back. Spokane county is shafted particularly hard. (10 years to finish a 7 mile stretch of north south freeway? WTF?!)
But since all the government happening are near Seattle and Olympia, we get taxed and ignored.
Time to move I suppose.
Reply
GhostDoggy 10:15AM (2/10/2008)
So, I can get taxed on a poor EPA mileage vehicle even if I do not drive it at all, but someone driving 100,000 miles per year is a mid-performing rating vehicle get's the tax breaks?
How about just taxing the product of actual miles and EPA rating? That way if SUV-loving mom drives 15K mile at 27 MPG and I drive 5K miles on 9 MPG we consumed the same amount of fuel.
Oh, here's an original thought, just replace my idea with a gasoline fuel tax. Doh! How original!
Reply
1985 Gripen 1:28PM (2/11/2008)
Why do states have a pre-determined fuel tax per gallon? For example, here in California it's 18 cents per gallon, I believe (the Feds and some local gov'ts add their own tax per gallon).
This does not account for inflation as someone else in comments alluded to. If gasoline costs $2.00 a gallon or $3.75 a gallon the state still takes the same amount of revenue per-gallon. Also, when roads construction costs more due to inflation, the state's still pulling-in the same revenue.
Why not make the fuel tax a percentage of the price like sales tax? That way as the price of fuel goes up due to supply and demand and inflation the tax is compensated?
I'm not big on taxes (I don't think anyone really is) but it seems ridiculous to me that the fuel tax isn't a percentage like every other tax is. It's more like a "fee" than a "tax".
Reply
Konrad Roeder 7:02PM (2/12/2008)
Here are some things to think about:
1) If you use the car occasionally and walk or ride a bike to work like I do, you still pay the CO2 tax to keep your weekend car in the garage.
2) Some people may opt to use a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) and still keep their car for occasional trips. Their garaged car would be taxed every year for CO2 it did not produce.
3) If your car happens to be an electric conversion, you will be taxed based on it's original EPA mpg rating.
4) Only vehicles from Washington are taxed on the car tabs, a gas-tax would tax everyone emitting CO2.
Reply
Tait 9:05PM (4/07/2008)
What might help is that if politicians really cared about the environment, they would of came up with a better alternative to oil. I suppose that would not help their bank accounts from the money they are getting from oil companies and car manufactures besides it might be dangerous.
Reply
peter-j 12:35PM (6/09/2008)
Seems to me we already have this system in place.
People who, for whatever reason, drive high-fuel-consuming vehicles, or who drive more, pay far more of the gas tax at the pump.
Those who drive more efficient cars, or who drive less, effectively pay far less of the same as they consume less.
There seems no need to change the system ... other than to provide our scum-sucking make-work government types have another excuse to hire more bodies, provide more jobs for the otherwise unemployable, expand their departments and therefore concoct a raise for themselves and their hand-picked chosen adorees - and provide an excuse to spend more on 'experts' and 'studies', etc.
This is merely another example of losers who could only find a job in a sector of last resort ... i.e., government ... seeking to modify your behavior on the basis that they and their taxpayer-paid 'consultants' and 'experts' simply know better than you ever will.
In any case, you are clearly too stupid to understand things as clearly as they do, so they will make important decisions for you, spend all your money, then tax you when you die.
Reply
qwk svt 6:40PM (6/12/2008)
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard..
AS others have said, I've read that they don't even use all of the taxes for the roads... and what a surprise, our roads are sh!t.
They can take this tax and shove it up their asses.
Reply