Time to Re-Think County Taxes!!!!!

Yes and Yes. My post was kinda tongue-in-cheek. I liked the "original" version as it was a consumption tax based on something that was driven (pun) by personal choice not outright necessity (i.e, you purchase a Rolls or a Yugo or something in between, its up to you). And then Gilmore tried to abolish it all together as part of his election campaign, only then realizing that there went much of the local revenue stream.

 

I echo the frustration on that. It simply makes no sense.

I also agree that the current form is a consumption tax based on purchase price. I think that system makes some sense, but I think the consumption tax should also including a weighting metric for the vehicle's carbon footprint. Under that system, a high-cost, high-polluting vehicle would see the most in taxes, while a low-cost, efficient vehicle would get a break.

 

We should tax imports at a higher rate too!

 

One flaw with this is there is no way to account for actual consumption, only expected consumption. Taxing a less efficient vehicle at a steeper rate than a more efficient vehicle ignores one huge factor... actual use of the vehicle. If I drive my 20mpg truck an average of under 10 miles per day, should I be penalized more than someone driving their 50mpg car over 100 miles per day? Which vehicle truly has the larger footprint? The one burning 1/2 gallon a day or the one burning 2 gallons a day?

 

And it gets worse the people that can least afford it drive the older vehicles. Because they can''t afford an new vehicle.

So the we hurt the people the most that can least afford it.

Lee j

 

This is why the tax based on vehicle value is in a sense more fair. At least with this method you actively choose your tax rate. As far as taxing based on the actual footprint, the fuel itself (with it's embedded taxes) should be able to act as the "higher" tax on the less efficient vehicles and actual usage. If you burn more fuel, you pay more fuel tax.

 

T8erman, I'm open to the suggestion and I think we should consider it. However, how do you define an "import" car? My SAAB was designed in Sweden, built in Austria (alas, the SAAB 9-3 Convertibles are built in Graz, Austria, not Sweden!), and sold by an American company (GM). Is it foreign or domestic? What about a Toyota built in Kentucky? Or a Buick built in Canada?

 

I think it should be based on what crosses the border. If the car enters the country complete, then tax it as an import. If the car is assembled within the country then it shouldn't be taxed as in import. However any parts that enter the country prior to assembly should be considered as imported items and should be subject to respective taxes. This won't necessarily be paid directly by the vehicle purchaser in the form of an import tax, but it most certainly should be reflected in the cost of the car, with a higher percentage of import parts reflecting a higher vehicle cost.

 

I'm liking your logic today, but you have to admit that the term "Socialist Europe" is just an aspersion favored by the right wing to make everything European seem bad. In fact, many European countries today have Center-Right governments (for example, Germany and France) with views not entirely dissimilar to American conservatives on economic issues (a gap the size of the Atlantic Ocean remains on social issues).

Also, it's not considered "socialist" when toll roads (many of them government-owned unlike our beloved Greenway) in the U.S. charge different rates based on the number of axles a vehicle has. So, basing a toll or tax on a vehicle's attributes is already something we do in the U.S., and we are not "socialists" the last time I checked.

Thinking about it some more, I agree that your approach of the carrot vs. the stick does make more sense. I'd just like to see a system that somehow makes it appealing for consumers to purchase vehicles that will decrease our dependence on the oil reserves of the people who hate us in the Middle East.

True, my SAAB would be about 4x more expensive if purchased in Sweden, and it would be sold without all of the incentives that we get in the U.S. However, in Europe, I could have gotten a bio-diesel engine and an option we don't get here in the U.S. (power-folding side mirrors...why I ask, why isn't that offered?!?).

 

That's an approach that I bet Toyota would support. However, I think it would hurt the American companies that are now building a lot of product overseas. Not to only use SAAB examples, but the upcoming SAAB SUV (more of a CUV or Cute Ute) is going to be built in Mexico and will be primarily produced for the US market.

 

Yes but vehicles with more axles translate directly to heavier vehicles resulting in faster road deterioration and hence the need to resurface sooner. I think this form of a toll does at least spread the actual road coast more fairly, ie, to those vehicles who "consume" the road quicker. How efficient a vehicle is doesn't necessarily equate to a different cost of maintaining the highway. Certainly a vehicle that simply uses the road more often than another makes for an unbalanced "consumption" of the road however that is offset by paying tolls more frequently and paying more fuel tax (by consuming more fuel).

 

"True" imports. Where a majority of the car, parts and manufacturing, were done outside of the US.

 

I could be mistaken, but I think that works out nicely for cars like the Toyota Camry. It's mostly made in the U.S., according to an article I saw (see Whose part is it?-Measuring domestic content of vehicles). My overall take on the article is that figuring our what's an import and what's domestic is a pretty hard task.

 

Good point on the road deterioration topic. However, flynnibus was criticizing Europe for basing tolls/taxes on a variety of characteristics (engine size, their power output, and seating possibility). Engine size and seating possibility would be associated with greater weight, in most cases, so that would cause faster road deterioration and hence the need to resurface sooner, too.

 

The Camry is manufactured in Georgetown, Kentucky. And I think 80-90% of the parts are US made too.

 

I'd never think of it as an American car, but that definition sure makes it so!

 

IMO, that is why it is such a successful model. Made in the USA but since it is a Toyota, it gets high marks for quality.

I would bet that sales people certainly let customers know it is "made in America".