Wilmette to pass sticker prices variable on emissions

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the Village of Wilmette's city council appears to be on the verge of doing something unique. They will be increasing the price of village stickers by $25 (raised to $75), but if your vehicle meets certain EPA criteria for low emissions, you get the old price of $50. Further, if you meet the HIGHEST criteria for low pollution, you pay LESS than the year before - $25. This marks a first for municipalities in getting into the pollution issue...

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ll=chi-news-hed

 

What does everyone think?

 

I think I like it. You can still own and operate any vehicle you'd like... but if your vehicle causes more damage to the environment (and thusly, the health and wellness of residents), you have to pay a little extra for that priviledge. Its like pollution credits that businesses work with, which I like too.

[Balta1701]

I would be in favor of eliminating all taxes on gasoline and making up the entire revenue through exactly that system.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would be in favor of eliminating all taxes on gasoline and making up the entire revenue through exactly that system.

That would result in some ENORMOUS prices at the municipal level for vehicle ownership. I assume you mean something non-local? Also, when you convert revenue from something instantaneously charged (sales tax) to something collected (permits), you lose a percentage of that revenue due to much higher failure to pay rates.

 

What exactly did you have in mind?

[Balta1701]

That would result in some ENORMOUS prices at the municipal level for vehicle ownership. I assume you mean something non-local? Also, when you convert revenue from something instantaneously charged (sales tax) to something collected (permits), you lose a percentage of that revenue due to much higher failure to pay rates.

 

What exactly did you have in mind?

First of all, there are ways one could overcome the failure-to-pay rates. Tickets for people not having them, is one option...having it be a standard part of the tax paid when purchasing a car would be another one.

 

Yes, it would result in significant price increases for vehicle ownership...but the key is, it would result in much more significant price increases for heavily polluting or gas-guzzling cars. And thus, it would be a very very heavy disincentive towards purchasing or using said vehicles.

 

I'm not sure of a good way to make it a perfect system...but when compared with highly regressive gas taxes that only do a small amount to discourage consumption, I think that a system that taxes based on the EPA ratings or on the MPG of a car would be a significant improvement.

[NorthSideSox72]

First of all, there are ways one could overcome the failure-to-pay rates. Tickets for people not having them, is one option...having it be a standard part of the tax paid when purchasing a car would be another one.

 

Yes, it would result in significant price increases for vehicle ownership...but the key is, it would result in much more significant price increases for heavily polluting or gas-guzzling cars. And thus, it would be a very very heavy disincentive towards purchasing or using said vehicles.

 

I'm not sure of a good way to make it a perfect system...but when compared with highly regressive gas taxes that only do a small amount to discourage consumption, I think that a system that taxes based on the EPA ratings or on the MPG of a car would be a significant improvement.

Well, dynamic registration rates are already used in Colorado - but there it is based on a percentage of value of the car. So at least is progressive.

 

Problem is, if you drop gas prices, people will drive they cars they already have a lot more. And how often people drive is at least as important as what they drive, if not more so. You would be effectively discouraging the use of mass transit. That isn't what you or I would want, I think.

 

Here is what I'd suggest. Keep gas taxes as they are. At the state level, determine the approximate total cost of health care and other efforts that have to occur as a result of vehicular pollution (of course this will have to be an approximation, but a general target is fine). Take that state-covered cost, and charge it to vehicle owners, dynamic based on emission levels (higher emissions, higher registration rates). Reduce income taxes by the same gross amount. Voila - you have rebalanced the tax burden to penalize those contributing to the problem, and rewarding smart consumption.

[StrangeSox]

A plan like this penalizes people who cannot afford new cars, and rewards those who can.

What's next, we sue car manfacturers for making cars that meet our emissions standards? That would be the day!

[NorthSideSox72]

A plan like this penalizes people who cannot afford new cars, and rewards those who can.

What's next, we sue car manfacturers for making cars that meet our emissions standards? That would be the day!

As time goes on and more low-emission vehicles are available, that is less of a truth. Heck, even now, you can buy all sorts of used cars that are LEV's. But temporarily, yes, it would help new car buyers more often than used. Gotta start somewhere.

[jasonxctf]

A plan like this penalizes people who cannot afford new cars, and rewards those who can.

What's next, we sue car manfacturers for making cars that meet our emissions standards? That would be the day!

 

 

100% not true. Doesnt a 1994 Honda Civic have a lower emission rate than a 2005 Tahoe?