Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick considers "Hummer Tax"
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) is said to be considering adjusting registration fees skyward for large, gas-guzzling vehicles while discounting the same for fuel-saving models. The controversial legislation has earned the nickname "Hummer Tax" since it is rather obviously geared towards large SUVs like those sold by GM's struggling HUMMER division.
Opponents to the plan warn that the charges could have a disproportionately large impact on large families and small business owners that rely on large vehicles to perform their daily routines. On the other hand, proponents for the legislation highlight the fact that it's technology neutral, meaning that any vehicle that manages to save fuel over its competitors would qualify for the savings, regardless of what kind of fuel or technology is being used.
There are also movements within the current Massachusetts administration that hope to raise the state's gas tax or increase the price of tolls. One problem with a gas tax increase is that the move towards more fuel efficient vehicles would lower the amount of income the state is taking in, so an alternative plan would tax drivers based on mileage driven.
Gallery: AFVI Ride & Drive Ethanol Hummer
Massachusetts is also considering raising the state's fuel tax.
[Source: The Boston Globe]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jharlan 9:15PM (2/19/2009)
Yea, I know how this works! Step 1. People buy smaller cars to avoid the higher taxes. Step 2. State revenues go down because people are buying smaller cars. Step 3. This ass hole raises taxes on smaller cars to get the state revenues back up. Yea, we know how that works.
Reply
dhofmann 9:43PM (2/19/2009)
The gas tax is really not a very good way to recover the cost of building and maintaining roads, especially with electric cars coming online. What it's good for is reducing air pollution by encouraging people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles in order to avoid the tax.
A mileage tax ought to be based on the amount of force it exherts on the road per square unit of tire-road contact, because that's the cause of road wear.
So the fairest thing to do would be to have both taxes. Additionally, Hummers and other heavy vehicles ought to require stricter driver licensing because they pack more inertia than smaller cars and therefore do more damage in an accident.
Reply
GoodCheer 9:40AM (2/20/2009)
Just to elaborate on what dhofmann has said:
Damage to roadways is proportional to the cube of the axle loading.
So if my Civic (~500kg/axle) does 1 unit of damage.
A Hummer (~1500kg/axle) does 9 units of damage.
and a semi (~5000kg/axle) does 1000 units of damage.
On my bicycle (~65kg/axle) I do about 0.002 units of damage.
So while the Hummer driver is paying about 3x as much fuel tax as I am, that is still not proportionate to the damage she is doing. And don't get me started on semis.
Of course there are roads in may places where semi never go, so for whatever fraction of roads that is, the big FUV drivers should pay much more than simply fuel tax.
Brn 11:03PM (2/19/2009)
Such a tax already exists. If your vehicle is less fuel efficient, you use more fuel. That costs more, in both fuel and tax. I don't know why we need to tax above and beyond that.
Reply
Phil 5:19AM (2/20/2009)
I live in France where such a tax had severe consequences on the domestic production. Renault and PSA cannot afford to manufacturer small cars in France due to high labor costs that would further reduce the already low margin on small cars. When the tax on CO2 emissions was introduced, French people stopped buying the large cars that are manufactured in France. The domestic market being a sizable portion of Renault and PSA's sales, French car factories are now in big trouble. Production keeps being interrupted, workers are being laid off or asked to work on partial time with reduced pay checks. Needless to say that introducing such a tax was definitely not a good move, to say the least.
By the way, the IPCC recommends focusing on reducing emissions when the cost does not exceed $25/ton. The idea is to focus on gains that can be achieved easily without creating a big burden on the economy or unresonable tax increases. Major gains can be achieved at such a cost in many industries. In France, the tax penalty for a car rated 166 g of CO2/km compared with a car rated 101 g of CO2 is 1450 euros or approximately $1,800. Assuming that the car will run 200,000 km, the CO2 savings is 13t. Therfore, the cost per ton is $138. Way above the recommended target.
Reply
paulwesterberg 4:35PM (2/20/2009)
13 metric tons is lot of CO2. It takes 5,577 liters of gas to produce that much CO2.
1 metric ton of CO2 is produced by burning 429 liters. If you taxed CO2 at $25/ton that would be a gas tax of 5.8 cents per gallon which wouldn't be enough to make people change their driving habits.
I think a hummer "tax"(actually fee/incentive program) along with increases in gas tax are the best way to get people to reevaluate unsustainable lifestyles.
Matt Groom 8:29AM (2/20/2009)
In case you all haven't noticed, the reason these taxes are being considered is not for the environment, it's for the government. They want to tax anybody they can for as much as they can for as long as they can so they can use that money (OUR MONEY) to buy more votes to increase and solidify their power. Witness the recent bacon-flavored spending spree AKA the "Stimulus". Those of use who drive smaller vehicles are less likely to protest when the larger vehicles are taxed, and THAT'S THE IDEA.
"First they came for the Hummer drivers, but I did nothing, because I don't own an SUV..."
Reply
Throwback 11:23AM (2/20/2009)
Matt you are the winner! This is another way for the state government to get more tax dollars, it has nothing to do with the environment. Large families will be hit harder, A Honda Accord vs a Fit for example. As for business owners, get ready to earn less profits, if any at all.
BoomBoom 1:09PM (2/20/2009)
Oh, the poor suffering SUV driver who spends thousands extra to buy and SUV rather than a sedan, minivan or wagon. They are so oppressed.... Please. If you have the money to buy a huge SUV to haul around your toys and be a status symbol, you have the money to pay for the damage you're doing to the roads and the planet.
Matt Groom 5:13PM (2/20/2009)
Thank you, Throwback.
BoomBoom,
This is the second comment I'm replying to of yours. I gather the following about you:
1. You are self-centered and naive. "I don't drive a big vehicle, so F&$# everyone else." SUVs are not hurting the planet and never were. There is this thing at the center of the Solar System called "The Sun" and it provides all of the heat and energy that supports life on this planet. The reason the planet's temperature is changing is.. wait for it... because the Sun fluctuates in inconsistent and irregular ways that we do not fully understand, no matter what Algor told you.
2. You are a supporter of Big Government, which makes you a Socialist.
3. You are not very bright. Sedans, Minivans, and Wagons ARE larger vehicles. They may be smaller than a Suburban, but this tax will be applied to drivers of large cars as soon as tax revenue gets tight. That was the point of my post. SUV sized vehicles are NOT damaging the roads anymore than any other passenger vehicle, you twit.
paulwesterberg 4:37PM (2/20/2009)
The money in this "tax" does not go to the government, it used to provide incentives for buying small, lightweight vehicles that use less gas and cause less road wear than most vehicles.
Willy 2:36PM (2/22/2009)
Matt - in your reply to boom boom you say "SUV sized vehicles are NOT damaging the roads anymore than any other passenger vehicle". So, if I extrapolate, then big truck also don't damage the road any more than a little bitty econobox. Really? Wow - physics wasn't your strong point, was it? Look back at what GoodCheer posted - that is more like what really happens - bigger vehicles are more of a burden to the roads, and it is NOT linear. You can't see it on a hard road short-term. Go look at a dirt road, or better yet, a muddy environment. The bigger the vehicle, the greater the damage. And as far as environmental impact - it is interesting to me that folks believe you can take energy that was stored over many, MANY thousands of years (oil), and release it over an extremely short span of time, and think that it isn't affecting the environment. Analyze temperature patterns around any big city - the city itself will be considerably warmer than the surrounding unpopulated area. Yes, five degrees is actually a HUGE difference in temperature, when there should be NO difference. Stand next to an air conditioner's outside unit in the summer. Feel all that additional heat being pumped into the atmosphere - then multiply that by however many units there are where you are. Still thinks it isn't making a difference? Of course, maybe my first question to you should have been to find out what color the sky is in your world... that would reveal a LOT.
asus 9:17AM (2/20/2009)
Why don't they just fix the gas guzzler tax? As it stands now, cars which get less than 22.5mpg have some form of the GGT applied to them. The lower the fuel economy the more GGT. However, SUVs and small trucks are exempt to it. Considering the majority of people who buy SUVs and many who buy small trucks are not using them for commercial purposes, they should fix the law to apply to those vehicles. If they want, they could write in a process for commercial entities to become exempt (or partially exempt) from the tax if they truly use the vehicle for business.
Reply
Julius 10:24AM (2/20/2009)
Well, that's because it's a Federal tax, and only valid once. It isn't an ongoing source of revenue.
jeff 10:41AM (2/20/2009)
Anybody saying they need a Hummer cause they have a big family is full of it. There are plenty of vehicles that carry a lot of people without weighing 9 tons. Check out the Ford Flex for example.
Reply
Carney 10:43AM (2/20/2009)
The Flex. Grr, don't remind me. Ford, the INVENTOR of flex fuel technology, the key potential that can break us free of oil, comes out with a vehicle called the "Flex", and it ISN'T EVEN FLEX FUELED, just stupidly needlessly locked in to gasoline-only like everything else. Morons.
pditty 11:51AM (2/20/2009)
The inventor of Flex Fuel?
You mean an in-line water separating fuel filter and larger fuel injectors? Hardly impressive technology, especially since hillbillies have been doing similar things for decades.
Anyway, flex fuel is a joke and, at best, a stop gap measure (not that you can even buy E85 outside of the midwest).
People say hybrids are a stop gap measure, but you can (and should) use a hybrid to recapture energy from electric, hydrogen, whatever...
The Ford Flex interior is terrible. What's with the big flat ugly seats?
jharlan 1:33PM (2/20/2009)
Are there enough Mummers out there to be statistically significant? I doubt it. This is symbolism without much substance. The main effect will be to kill automotive jobs.
Reply
russ egan 2:07PM (2/22/2009)
A hummer tax, hmmmmm how do they collect it from hookers.??
Reply
ROBOJERK 2:13PM (2/22/2009)
GEE,....WHAT A SURPRISE "THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF MASS." TAXES EVERYTHING.! ISN'T THAT THE HOME OF AN ENTIRE CLAN OF TRUST FUND BOYS THAT NEVER WORKED AN HONEST DAY IN THEIR LIVES.?... I BELIEVE THEY ARE CALLED KENNEDY.
Reply