Living in LoCo
Should Tax Rates Rise on Hybrids?
Erica Garman at 2:23 p.m., October 13, 2008 (28 comments)
Do you think the hybrid distinction should count for reduced taxes? (Photo by Erica Garman)
In this week's installment of Energy Efficient Mondays in October, I thought I'd take a look at a recent discussion by the county Board of Supervisors about whether to raise the personal property tax on hybrid vehicles, a measure that would give the county increased revenue.
Five years ago, the board enacted a penny per $100 value tax incentive for hybrid owners in order to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles and to support clean-climate initiatives. (Currently, owners of conventional cars pay $4.20 per $100 value.)
Now, several board members argue, the time has come when residents are purchasing hybrids - not for the tax incentives - but because of high gas prices.
“There should be a more reasonable rate on these vehicles,” said Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) during the Sept. 2 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Burton proposed exploring the options of raising the rate to $1 per $100 assessed value. His motion passed.
Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) agreed with Burton’s reasoning.
“The incentive is no longer necessary,” Miller said. “Although I’m a big proponent of the technology, the harsh reality is that we’re giving tax breaks to drivers of luxury hybrid SUVs that get fewer miles per gallon than fuel-efficient cars.”
Miller said he believes that rather than eliminating the tax incentive, the board should “move it forward” and focus on the next technology, all-electric vehicles, by offering owners of those kinds of vehicles a tax cut.
Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) expressed her displeasure with Burton’s motion to adjust the tax break by citing an article she had read recently.
“It said that 80 percent of people choose hybrids for the fuel economy and the tax benefits,” she said. “Please don’t cut this initiative.”
Environmentalists say that more hybrids on the road would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources, reduce air pollution and mitigate global climate change. My husband and I purchased a hybrid Toyota Highlander a few years back for these very reasons. The tax incentives certainly helped sway our decision, but more importantly, we wanted to support hybrid technology and send a message with our wallet that clean technology is important to us.
It’s true, as Supervisor Miller mentioned, that our hybrid gets about the same MPG as a conventional mid-sized sedan — not the most fuel-efficient car on the road by any means. (I don't know the exact MPG, but it's supposed to get between 25 and 28 on short trips.) But, as a frequent carpooler, I need a vehicle that seats four or five children legally, which is something we can’t do with a Prius, for example.
What do you think? Should hybrid owners continue to receive the penny tax break to encourage clean energy, or should the rate be raised to supplement our county’s income? Post your comments below.
Deal of the Day
$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!
Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.
• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals
Latest Deal
• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
Are you happy that the school year is over?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
I agree that the incentive is no longer necessary. Motorcycles get better gas mileage than hybrids and I believe that they are taxed at the normal rate.
Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't even know there was a tax break when I purchased my Toyota Camry Hybrid, so I definitely didn't purchase because of it. It was discouraging to me to see a Chevy Hybrid Tahoe today, though, and to know that the owners are receiving a tax break on a vehicle that gets 20 mpg (I've averaged 38 mpg during my first year of ownership). If they want to continue a tax incentive, perhaps there should be a minimum fuel efficiency standard to qualify.
Posted by jlstapleton (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto that the tax incentive is no longer necessary. It may not have been in the first place!
I also hope the board is serious at looking at taxing personal aircraft at a more realistic rate.
We have a number of things in our local tax policy that give a break for lifestyle items that simply aren't realistic. They weren't equitable in the first place, but neither were they as financially egregious when things were more prosperous. I don't think we can any longer afford to give some of them a pass.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only way I could possibly support an increase is if they also pass a law that every single dollar collected from vehicle-related sources must be set aside strictly for road improvements in the county. There is no reason why we should have to continue to tolerate a plethora of stoplights on Rt. 7 just because our county leadership can't keep their hands off of the general fund.
Until they get their collective acts together, I will continue to keep my car registered in a different state. I am not paying Loudoun a single red cent in automotive property taxes or those stupid little city stickers until Route 7 goes from being a guaranteed encounter with gridlock to an economical alternative to the Greenway.
Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hoqenishy, for someone who does not pay his/her fair share of taxes, you sure have a lot to say in these comment areas. From now on, your opinions are void and I will suggest removal. Everyone could find a personal gripe that gives them a "Perceived" reason not to pay taxes. Yours is ridiculous. Grow Up!
Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i favor the tax break- and not just because we own 2 hybrids!
Posted by tttrenee (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No tax breaks for hybrids. We should not be subsidizing the 'lifestyles" of liberals who drive down the road looking down their noses at regular vehicles. If they can afford the price premium for a hybrid, then they can afford to pay their fair share. Hybrids do just as much damage to the infrastructure as regular cars and trucks. They are already getting a tax break by not paying as much in fuel taxes.
Posted by kmccorma (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just offering this reduced tax on Hybrids is unfair. A tax break should reflect the intent. If the intent is to promote High Gas Mileage and Low Emissions then it should be based on the Vehicle, not the technology applied. My 2007 vehicle gets 37 - 42 MPG on every tank and the engine is rated as Ultra Low Emissions. It is not a Hybrid. Does a Hybrid SUV getting 24 mpg deserve a tax break more than I do? Set the tax law to promote the MPG and emissions, (or anything else that is measurable), you wish to achieve and let the buyer decide which way to go based on a FAIR system.
Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with salm624. Just because a car/truck has an extra battery does not automatically make it a environmental god-send. Yet only "hybrids" are allowed societal driving perks such as free use of HOV lanes and tax breaks. I love that hybrids are helping to increase emissions awareness, HOWEVER their are many cars besides hybrids that offer improved emissions and ULE ratings, yet these vehicles are largely ignored by govt. institutions (unless you live in CA). Don't give tax-breaks based on faddish terms - give them based on realistic ideas.
Posted by swu69 (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We should not be subsidizing the 'lifestyles" of liberals who drive down the road looking down their noses at regular vehicles"
Think of it as driving down the cost of gas for everyone, then, including you. :)
Posted by backinloco (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There should be a grandfathering clause for those people who made a purchase decision based on the promise of a lower tax rate for a vehicle that requires 3 or more years of tax incentives to be break-even. Otherwise the whole tax incentive is a bait and switch scam by the government.
Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great, so now I'm a liberal whose "lifestyle" is to look down their nose at "regular" vehicles? How about: I'm trying to improve the "lifestyle" of all Americans, including you, by reducing emissions - i.e. the air you and your family breath - and my dependence on fossil fuels which affects the supply of oil, and the price thereof, which affects the price of almost everything we buy from food to clothing to televisions. In other words, anything that has to be transported. You didn't see me disparaging your reactionary lifestyle in my first post, so why did you have to start name-calling? Most of us grew out of that after kindergarten. I agree with salm624 and swu69, any incentive should be based on actual improvement over average emissions.
Posted by jlstapleton (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also agree with salm624. Emphasize mileage. Technology is just the means to the end.
Posted by homekelly (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
salm, I -am- paying my "fair share" of taxes. When Loudoun starts improving the Rt. 7 situation, I will be happy to register my car here. As it is now, my only options are to pay an exorbitant amount on a private road (Greenway), or use a road provided by another state to get to work. I have chosen to leave my car registered in the other state, as they have proven that they're willing to make the necessary expenditures on infrastructure.
Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree with salm re: Hoqenishy. If you don't pay your taxes here, you can just hush and enjoy the view. If you don't like the roads in Loudoun, find another way to get to work. If you want to join the rest of the law-abiding citizens and register your vehicle appropriately, then feel free to speak up.
Personally, I think the incentives should be cancelled for the obvious reasons. Hybrid SUVs are not as fuel-friendly as many sedans, and the whole Hybrid-HOV lane exemption is a crock. Simply put... You buy the car, you pay the taxes.
Posted by ronin718 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hoqenishy - your "excuse" is lame. You leave your car registered in another state because you think you are "pulling a slick one" on Virginia and Loudoun and because you are CHEAP and a willing tax-dodger (i.e. thief).
Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I cut back my electric bill can I get a tax break on my home real estate tax?
Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hoqenishy, if you've lived in Loudoun/Virginia for more than 30 days but your car is registered elsewhere, you are breaking the law.
If it's an act of civil disobedience you're trying to achieve, why not come right out and say who you are, so the authorities can come and give you the ticket you deserve for not registering your car here as state law requires.
Better not ever get stopped by a cop. If they check your license and registration you'll get the ticket.
Posted by homekelly (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hogenshy, The choices you have elected to make (deliberately choosing to flout the law in protest of your “Rights”, “Desires”); makes you no better than those who Deliberately choose to come here illegally and take advantage of others paying for what you use. Your voice on these boards has no further value.
Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hoqenishy...I guess you don't think you are part of the problem?
If the county had more revenue it would do what you are asking. It has already started removing RT 7 lights, but we need more revenue -- your revenue helps. I turned in somebody two weeks ago who does what you do. I hope somebody turns you in, too.
Posted by RustNeverSleeps (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rust, if I believed that they would make a difference, I'd be happy to. Heck, it'd be cheaper to register my car in Virginia than out-of-state.
From experience, I know that my money will be frittered away on some useless bloated expenditure, and not used to actually improve roads. Thus, I -legally- choose to leave my car registered in a different state, rather than move it here. And -when- I have gotten stopped in the past, I did not receive a ticket. Civil disobedience requires more than a singular action. It requires a strategy to make a statement without risk of having the authorities squash said statement.
Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on October 17, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Haqenishy, You should run for office with that kind of double speak and spin. Honest people pay their taxes and don't make excuses.
Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on October 18, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You want to tax hybrids now: fine. Just grandfather those of us that already bought the car and everyone is happy.
The law can change, but let's not screw those of us that took advantage of the opportunity when it did exist.
Posted by fenriswolf (anonymous) on October 18, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fenris, there are enough separate but equal policies at work in Loudoun as it is, which is part of how we got into this mess.
The Board is looking at adjusting open space breaks, and the same argument is being made there--but they entered in good faith.
Of course they did. It doesn't mean it is any longer a realistic policy or a financially beneficial one TO THE COUNTY.
Any new policies will have to be carefully implemented to wean the open space participants off of their tax breaks, and the same can hold true for the hybrids.
Those who say it should be based on mileage are on the right track.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 19, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No government, be it federal, state, or local should meddle in the market. Previous meddling, in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac and the economic mess they left behind in the form of unsound mortgages given to people who didn't deserve them (measured by sound lending standards) should have taught us that lesson already.
And to put my money where my mouth is, I just took delivery on a new 2009 model hybrid and I sure as hell don't expect my neighbors to subsidize my choice of motor vehicle.
Buy what you want. Let the free market decide. Stop the nanny government meddling in our lives.
Posted by obviously (anonymous) on October 19, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment