HUMMER TAX: Massachusetts Considers Higher Fees For Gas Guzzlers

Another day, another financial incentive for people to go green -- Massachusetts is considering requiring owners of inefficient vehicles to pay more for registration in what is being called a Hummer Tax:

Governor Deval Patrick said today he is looking at a Hummer tax -- adding higher registration fees for gas-guzzling cars and offering discounts for those that do less harm to the environment. One industry opponent said it would be the first such fee in the nation on the state level.

The suggestion comes as Patrick prepares to unveil a fuller version of his much-awaited transportation plan on Friday. While he would not release details today, Patrick said at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce appearance that any gas tax increase would be coupled with a freeze on toll rates.

Environmentalists applauded the registration proposal, saying it would encourage people to buy smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, which are increasingly seen as key to curbing global warming. Similar proposals have been proposed in Massachusetts since at least 2001, but without the prominent backing of a sitting governor.

RELATED:
::Massachusetts May Pay For Roads By Charging Drivers' Mileage
::China Offered To Pay People To Have More Efficient Cars

Comments

[letsbepeaceful]

I've been suggesting this for a while. A $500 a year tax on new vehicles with estimates under 15 mph, $400 for those getting 16-25 mph, $250 for 26-35, and $100 for those getting 36 and up. Raise the numbers every 2 years by 5 mph.

Business tax exemptions for those who need larger vehicles for business - contractors, etc.

And for older vehicles that need to be gotten off the road because of low mpg and high emissions - raise registration fees by $5-20 yearly, to encourage tradeins over time.

Now that means I'd need to be paying in the 250-400 range, because I need a larger car due to arthritis and haven't found a small one that has a seat high enough for me to be able to get in and out safely. I'm ok with that.

And yes, minivans do get much better mileage than hummers. My 2001 Pontiac Montana got 22 in and out of NYC, and now it's upstate all the time,. more like 25.

[etcetc]

It's a "kind of" good idea. Problem being that a lot of family cars, mini-SUVs, and minivans do not meet the requirements for the larger tax break. If businesses get a tax break on the car tax for our plan, those people having 2 or more kids should get one too

[justmeinAz]

I think people with two or more kids get a lot a breaks already. They can pay an annual registration at the appropriate amount.

[dutt]

The gas tax already effectively taxes consumption. 10 gallons of gas burned is 10 gallons, doesn't matter whether it was a hummer or civic. The real issue I see is wear and tear on the road as well as emissions. Heavy vehicles will put more wear and tear on the road, vehicles with poor emissions standards will pollute more per gallon. Unless someone comes up with a better idea, higher registration fees seem like an imperfect but better than nothing solution. I understand that people with older cars don't want to, as some have put it, be punished. Well then let's at least make it easier for people to get cleaner more efficient vehicles and reward the ones who already have.

[justmeinAz]

ten gallons in a Civic will take you 380 miles or better. ten gallons in a Hummer will take you 80 or so. That's the difference. If you drive a Hummer to work and back every day, there should be added cost to penalize you for burning through our precious, finite resources so dang much faster than everyone else. Not to mention the emissions from a Hummer are far dirtier, per gallon of gas, than from a Civic. It really is an a55hole-ish way to travel when it's not necessary.

[revhatchell]

what's wrong with small cars?
are suvs so crucial to their apologists' egos that reason is out of the question?
we need as efficiency asap.
grow up! your monster trucks will never be efficient, ever.

ride a bike. bikes are the answer to the unholy fastfood+fat american+fat american monster truck combo.

usa! usa! usa!

[etcetc]

I used to agree until I had 2 kids and realized it is IMPOSSBILE, physically impossible, to fit 2 car seats in my subaru WRX. I'm shopping for an SUV this week to A- fit my kids inside and B- help with a chronic back problem. Bending over to put my son in the car was brutal and the height of a van, mini-van, SUV would work wonders for my health.

[justmeinAz]

My sister has two kids, and she put two car seats in her mid-size. Wasn't even a problem. Your contention that it is IMPOSSIBLE is a CROCK. You want an SUV, fine, but don't rationalize it here with B.S. You think other parents who drive cars don't read the comments here?

[lacrossedadof2]

Go ahead an buy what you want. Dont listen to justmeinAz. This person has no family and thinks everyone else is alone too.

[HonorJusticeTruth]

If you make it so the tax is based on the weight of the vehicle (any vehicle weighing over 4000 pounds, say) plus the average milage being below 15 MPG, then you eliminate the concerns of many of the writers here. For example, a 1974 Olds Cutlass weighed in at about 3500 pounds, and got about 13 MPG. Even though the MPG was below the definition, the weight would exempt it from the tax. Most big guzzlers today are mega vehicles which don't carry any more passengers than more economical ones but are good on the ego. Another exception could be for those vehicles already paying taxes as commercial vehicles. If you need your F-350 for your business, you would already be covered, but if it's only for hauling the boat to the lake, so sorry.

[lacrossedadof2]

Who the he!! are you to tell me to pay more because I tow a camper. In NY we already pay a ton in gas taxes We dont need to pay more, no matter what we drive.

[dutchman]

You need to pay for what you use, including road damage from your trailer. My little Honda is much easier on the roads. Why shouldn't you pay more?

[HonorJusticeTruth]

I am who I am.

[etcetc]

Who is anyone to say you have to pay a tax on liquor, or cigs? Same theory applies. And I'd rather they tax that than food. Point is, you have a choice to avoid the tax y not doing it

[EinChicago]

would this involve some type of mileage tracker in the car? You'd damn weel need ot make sure that the Prius driver who drives 1000 miles a month pays the same as the SUV driver who drives 200 miles per month or you have a constitutional discrimination issue.

[HonorJusticeTruth]

The problem with milage trackers is how does anyone other than the operator know if that vehicle was only driven in-state? If you went cross country you wouldn't want to be taxed for the milage when you were out of state. Of course, if you put a recording device with a GPS system in all these vehicles, and it knows whether you are in-state or not, then it would be accurate. In Germany commercial trucks have a speed recording device which the police have the right to check anytime to find violators. Imagine how well that would go over in America. About as well as photo speed cameras.

[SammyD]

this like everything else Mass does is not thought out.......­what's next, tractors? How about baby buggies as they do wear and tear on sidewalks?

[RealPlumber]

Of course if prostitution was legal a Hummer tax takes on a whole new meaning...­.for your consideration.

[Javelin 17]

Why not just a gas tax? It makes more sense for the cost to be per-gallon instead of per-vehicle, because the thing we really want to discourage is actually "using more gas", not "driving an inefficient vehicle". (It's the latter only because, and only to the extent that, the former happens as a direct effect of the latter.)

If what we care about really is CO2 emissions, as opposed to the symbolism or "morality" of your vehicle choice, then whatever we do about it (i.e., tax incentives) should be based as directly as possible on the actual amount of CO2. If someone owns a big SUV but drives it very little (say, for occasional wilderness trips, where the "sport utility" features are actually useful), and someone else owns a Prius but drives so many more miles that they end up using the same total amount of gas, then they're both resposible for the same amount of CO2, so why shouldn't they pay the same total amount? Making it a moral thing just gives the wingnuts a (valid, sadly) opening to attack "environmentalism as religion", etc.

[dutt]

I don't disagree with what you're saying except your point that bringing morality into it gives the wingnuts a valid attack on environmentalism. I say make it about morality. While we are at it, make it about patriotism too. I personally have a hard time understanding how a person can, with a clear conscience, drive a hummer (or many of the other vehicles out there). I believe strongly in protecting the environment but it is not a religion to me (it does astound me though that religion has not embraced environmentalism more strongly).

[Realization]

Since we need to cut use of imported fossil fuel, a good policy would be higher gas taxes and a gas guzzler tax. And since we need to eliminate the trade deficit, a bunch of fees on imports - higher port use fees, carbon tax on ships, inspections, port security fees, etc. The more the better. (Note: Korea, for one, has a system of taxes on taxes that significantly raises the cost of imports. It's expensive to import into China, etc. Just equalizing things.)

[ClownsInMyCoffee]

The details haven't been published yet, so it'll be interesting to see what qualifies as a gas guzzler. Under 20mpg? Under 15?

Unfortunately, someone is going to get screwed here no matter what. Imposing a tax on the number of miles you drive (or a gas tax) would have a greater overall impact, but there's no political will to get it done. This is a commuter state. Most of the people I know drive 40-80 miles a day to work and back. A gas tax would definitely hurt them.

The alternative - this gas guzzler tax - could potentially hurt me. I drive about 800 miles a year (really, eight hundred), but require 4 wheel drive to get around in the mountains (where I live) during most of the winter. My truck is just about dead, and while I probably couldn't get a loan in this economic climate anyway, I do need a new one.

I used to commute almost 80 miles a day, so I understand both sides of the equation. But don't think that this is simply a penalty tax on suburban housewives who drive hummers.

[IThinkThereforeIAm]

I drive a 2001 Ford Explorer that is paid off. I would love to trade it in for a Prius but in this great economy we have I have been laid off twice in one year.

I am battling through the Massachusetts bureaucratic nightmare that is the Department of Labor just to start collecting the unemployment I am entitled to. My line of work does not have a very good outlook for some time to come so I don't see an excess of money for a car payment any time soon.

I drive maybe 50-100 miles a month. This was true even when I was working...­well until they raised the parking prices at commuter rail stations by 50% making mass transit unaffordable. I ride my bike when I can and walk where I can. Is it right that I am penalized with yet another tax when I barely even drive the vehicle?

[TurtleGuy]

My car may or may not fall into the gas guzzler tax, depending on what arbitrary number the state pulls out of the air and considers "gas guzzling". My car does not get great economy, but it is far from polluting, it is considered a low-emission vehicle (rotary engine). Amount of gas burned does not equal amount of emissions produced, wake up people! The efficiency of your emission control system is the key factor here. You could have a blown cat converter and get 40MPG, and be the biggest polluter on the road.

Patrick just does not get it. He insists on picking on small segments of the population to allow others to not have to carry their fair share of the load. How about those freeloading new hampshire commuters, who don't have to pay a dime to maintain our roads, commuting to downtown Boston everyday? How about the smokers, who have to pay a downright outrageous cigarette tax, to bail out an overdrawn state budget? Why do we need to use 10 metric tons of road salt per square inch of road surface, when it is RAINING!!!!!! And don't get me started about his mandatory health insurance nonsense. Our taxes are already outrageous, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

Tell you what Gov Patrick, why don't you write up a budget, that at least seems like you are trying to keep things balanced. Then we'll talk about yet even more fees from Taxachusetts.

[LaurieLee]

If they don't use every last grain of salt this year, next year's salt allocation will decrease. That always resulted in tons of salt dumped all over the place every March and April in upstate NY when I was a kid. Typical bureaucratic stupidity.

[userw014]

What about older vehicles, especially those driven by people too poor to by a new car every few years? If this registration tax is supposed to encourage purchase of more environmentally friendly vehicles, then it might cause poorer people to give up driving entirely because they can't afford to register their old klunkers.

Making this increase dependent on the "bluebook" (or sale) value of the vehicle sounds like it would be a fair way to achieve the ends - old klunkers, not worth much, wouldn't see much of an increase. New hummers would get nailed.

[rlfast]

HuffPost's Pick

It is not realistic, nor environmentally beneficial, to expect anyone to throw an old car into the landfill if it still runs. The law is a great idea, way to go Massachusetts, but it must be aimed at new cars only. We should not allow the manufacture of any new gas guzzlers. At the national level, we should change Average Fuel Efficiency standards to include a Minimum Fuel Efficiency standard as well.

[RealPlumber]

Good point, my personal cars are 39 and 37 years old, no smoke, safe, and good for many more years of driving pleasure, both have new engines and transmissions (rebuilt originals).

[prog]

Buying a gashog car is a mistake and irresponsible; however, your point is right on. You can't penalize people for decisions they made in the past, and in a market which encouraged that decision. But you can change the rules NOW for new vehicles.

[dutt]

There are a lot of old vehicles that should have been taken off the road ages ago. Riding a bicycle around town you quickly become aware that there are a few cars out there that disproportionately pollute the air. I dread when one of those old klunkers pull up beside me. While the answer is not to put them in landfills, they don't belong on the road either.

I live in Salt Lake City where the air is incredibly foul. I wish the public weren't so apathetic about the air their children breathe.

[servicepap]

I'll buy your reasoning, rlfast. But let's also be sure to manufacture larger vehicles--full size vans--that are energy efficient for those who must use them to transport power wheelchairs and service animals. How I'd LOVE to be able to buy a Prius or any other small, gas efficient vehicle, but there are none that will accomodate my powerchairs and crates for my service animals. I can hardly afford to drive now, and try to take public transportation whenever possible. But when it's 110 degrees outside in the Mojave Desert, I have little choice. I hope the energy efficient vans we have been promised for so long will soon become a reality for the general public. Until then, many with major disabilities are at an extreme disadvantage.

[exxonmobil4prez]

PLEASE!! Take responsibility for a change Americans! I love it! It was funny to watch the big gas guzzlers off the road during the 4.00 a gallon then right back on again once the gas went down. DUH.. And don't these guys realize that the gas $ goes straight to terrorists! ;) I wonder what kind of people drive those stupid big a$$ trucks.. They usually have flags flying and something about being a veteran for 5 minutes or their brother of their cousin was or something.­. it's just so oxymoronic all the way around.