The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission released a report today on how to get federal transportation funding back into the black. Guess what they decided?! Instead of figuring it out with increased efficiency, innovation, and cuts else where the government decided that the best way to solve this problem is with, of course, charging us more money! See the below chart for a grab bag of what they're proposing.



Of course, even with these measures they still predict to lose money. Damn this sucks

feel free to see the attached links. One of them itself has a link to the actual report. Its a quick download, but the damn thing is about 250 pages long so I haven't made my way through it yet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123562023540279271.html
http://www.junkscience.com/blog1/

2/26/2009 11:18:34 PM

I'm not sure why taxing per-mile is a bad idea. It really is the epitome of a user fee.

To wit: if you drive more miles, you're using the roads more. If you're using the roads more, you should pay for the roads more.

I mean, no question we should be taking politics out of transportation allocations, and streamlining where we can - but the fact is, if we do raise fleet fuel economy, you're going to produce shortages in funding.

2/26/2009 11:42:39 PM

^ Then raise the gas tax. Why institute another far more complicated taxing mechanism which imposes exactly the same incentives as the old tax?

SO, please, why is a higher gas tax not as good as slapping a $200 GPS tracking system on every vehicle?

A gas tax is perfect: a hummer causes more damage to the roads than a Mini, but a per-mile tax would tax them exactly the same. However, a gasoline tax would tax the hummer dramatically more than the Mini (almost three times more). And I think that is quite reasonable.

A gas tax is ideal; it taxes those that drive more, more. it taxes those in the heaviest vehicles more. it is fairly easy to collect, all you need to keep track of is 10 or so oil companies. A perfect use tax. Brilliant.

The only benefit to a per-mile tax is you can tax some miles more than others, specifically highways during rush hour. But that is far easier done with EZ pass systems.

2/26/2009 11:55:45 PM

The last thing I want is the government tracking my damn car when I'm driving around.


, they probably already can.

2/26/2009 11:58:04 PM

Quote :

"he National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission released a report today on how to get federal transportation funding back into the black. Guess what they decided?! Instead of figuring it out with increased efficiency, innovation, and cuts else where the government decided that the best way to solve this problem is with, of course, charging us more money! See the below chart for a grab bag of what they're proposing."

OH KNOWZ THE LI LI LI LIBERALS ERR TRYING TO TUK MY MONIES AGAIN!!!

c'mon pat. you know that'll never fly. worst case they'll raise fed gas tax by a couple pennies. Which is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the taxes are used SOLELY in the highway fund.

Maybe you should start protesting the NC legislature house b.c we already pay a NC "Annual vehicle-user fee" aka registration fee of 30 (can't remmeber exact amount); every year.

2/27/2009 12:03:28 AM

Please, just STFU with your tired song and dance about partisanship. Its pretty clear that both sides of the fucking aisle have no problem with this sort of things. What do you want to argue, that they won't do this b/c it would hurt the economy? Obama (and plenty of others) want to blow ahead with carbon cap and trade which will kill the economy as well. They don't seem to care.

How do you block certain posters? My head hurts from reading this idiocy.

2/27/2009 12:09:46 AM

Quote :

"Then raise the gas tax. Why institute another far more complicated taxing mechanism which imposes exactly the same incentives as the old tax?"

Slow your roll there - I agree in principle. My question is again, what happens when fleet average economy increases? You still have road use but the commiserate fee income goes down.

I think a gas tax is probably the most efficient policy, but it runs into issues when fuel economy goes up. Or when non-conventional vehicles - such as electric or such - are on the road.

Quote :

"SO, please, why is a higher gas tax not as good as slapping a $200 GPS tracking system on every vehicle?"

For one, I think for any per-mile charge to be at all practical, it'd have to be a lot less than $200 per unit. However, a dramatically scaled-down unit could probably be reduced in cost considerably.

Quote :

"A gas tax is perfect: a hummer causes more damage to the roads than a Mini, but a per-mile tax would tax them exactly the same. However, a gasoline tax would tax the hummer dramatically more than the Mini (almost three times more). And I think that is quite reasonable. A gas tax is ideal; it taxes those that drive more, more. it taxes those in the heaviest vehicles more. it is fairly easy to collect, all you need to keep track of is 10 or so oil companies. A perfect use tax. Brilliant."

Yes and no. It's good in that it's direct, simple, and easy to implement. For now, it's probably a good solution. Yet it clearly will suffer from future problems as the fleet evolves - vehicles which use the road and don't get taxed at all (electric); not to mention assuming a fuel consumption-to-weight ratio is at best a rough approximation.

Again, if we need money right now, clearly a gas tax is the most superior solution. Long-term however, I think we'll need to consider the impact of fuel economy on the equation.

Quote :

"The only benefit to a per-mile tax is you can tax some miles more than others, specifically highways during rush hour. But that is far easier done with EZ pass systems."

Don't disagree with you here, either. I don't necessarily think you need a full-fledged GPS unit to actually do an effective per-mile strategy - some combination of techniques like user fees (EZ pass) and gas taxes would probably suffice for now. I just think it's better than some of the other alternatives - like fixed vehicle fees, property taxes, etc.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2009 12:10:27 AM

Quote :

"Which is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the taxes are used SOLELY in the highway fund."

No, the fed already has too much money. They should use the extra tax revenue to eliminate the payroll tax. Afterall, the gas-tax is a regressive tax, might as well use it to eliminate another regressive tax.

Quote :

"Again, if we need money right now, clearly a gas tax is the most superior solution. Long-term however, I think we'll need to consider the impact of fuel economy on the equation."

Fine. As fuel economy improves raise the gas-tax further. Or, here's a thought, spend less money. It costs far less money to maintain a road than it does to build one; why do we need to keep paying ever more money into transit budgets when all the money winds up being wasted building light-rail through suburban neighborhoods?

My assertion is that a per-mile tax is never a good idea fleet-wide. I believe cars will remain liquid fuel based for decades to come, so a gas-tax for most vehicles will remain effective. For those few that manage to go all electric, then tax them with a per-mile tax, or better yet tax their kwh, leave the rest of us alone.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2009 12:12:41 AM

The heavy transportation industry needs to shift more business back to railroads. They actually already are as its a much, much, much more efficient way to transport goods. This heavy transportation industry punishes the roadways the most, not private automobiles.

2/27/2009 12:14:44 AM

Quote :

"Afterall, the gas-tax is a regressive tax, might as well use it to eliminate another regressive tax."

I'm lost. Are you saying a payroll tax is regressive

i do not quite understand how a gas tax is regressive either.

2/27/2009 12:20:39 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why taxing per-mile is a bad idea. It really is the epitome of a user fee. To wit: if you drive more miles, you're using the roads more. If you're using the roads more, you should pay for the roads more. I mean, no question we should be taking politics out of transportation allocations, and streamlining where we can - but the fact is, if we do raise fleet fuel economy, you're going to produce shortages in funding."

Agreed. I hate taxes, but would prefer the combination of a per-mile tax and a gas-tax over just a gas-tax by itself. (But only if it's implemented via annual inspection.)

Quote :

"Then raise the gas tax. Why institute another far more complicated taxing mechanism which imposes exactly the same incentives as the old tax? "

Come on Lonesnark... I hate taxes more than you, but we're not getting rid of them any time soon. Do you disagree? Do you think taxes will disappear soon? If you do, you're fucking loony. We libertarians can't just sink our heads in the sand whenever tax issues come up. The fact is, a per-mile tax is EXTREMELY similar to a user-fee -- something that nearly every libertarian supports. Yes... Both taxes are bad, but the combination of the two can be better than just one or the other.

Quote :

"SO, please, why is a higher gas tax not as good as slapping a $200 GPS tracking system on every vehicle?"

It's not per-mile. That's why.
AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO PUT GPS ON ONE SINGLE VEHICLE. THE GPS THING IS A FUCKING SCAM

Quote :

"A gas tax is perfect:"

No. It only taxes gas use, not road use.

Quote :

"a hummer causes more damage to the roads than a Mini, but a per-mile tax would tax them exactly the same."

Not a per-mile-per-pound tax, which has been proposed.

Quote :

"However, a gasoline tax would tax the hummer dramatically more than the Mini (almost three times more). And I think that is quite reasonable."

Which is why both taxes are needed, not just one or the other.

Quote :

"A gas tax is ideal; it taxes those that drive more, more."

A per-mile tax would be a more accurate measure of the usage of roads, not just of gas.

Quote :

"[A gas tax] taxes those in the heaviest vehicles more."

Only generally.

Quote :

"it is fairly easy to collect, all you need to keep track of is 10 or so oil companies."

So would the per-mile tax. Simply lift the odometer reading at annual inspections. NO GPS!!!

Quote :

"A perfect use tax. Brilliant."

Again, no. Neither gas taxes, nor per-mile taxes are perfect in and of themselves. Together, however, they would constitute a near perfect use tax.

Quote :

"The only benefit to a per-mile tax is you can tax some miles more than others, specifically highways during rush hour. But that is far easier done with EZ pass systems."

No, you also get the benefit of having a per-mile tax. A tax on how many miles of road you used. Not how much gas you used, but how much road

Quote :

"The last thing I want is the government tracking my damn car when I'm driving around."

Me either.
A per-mile tax does not require that. If we get this per-mile tax, WE NEED TO DEMAND IT BE DONE THROUGH ANNUAL INSPECTIONS, AND NOT GPS BULLSHIT.

Quote :

"For one, I think for any per-mile charge to be at all practical, it'd have to be a lot less than $200 per unit. However, a dramatically scaled-down unit could probably be reduced in cost considerably."

Or, you can realize that a GPS unit is NOT FUCKING REQUIRED TO DO THIS!!!!
IS THIS MERELY A PER-MILE TAX, OR A BACKDOOR WAY TO ESTABLISH BULLSHIT PRECEDENTS?

Quote :

"Conceptually, it makes good sense," House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) said Monday, referring to taxing drivers per mile traveled. "I expect, if the technology existed in 1956, the founders [of the Interstate Highway System] would have used that instead of the gas tax."

Quote :

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled,” the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said."

Quote :

"A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it’s an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens"

Quote :

"The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours. The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed"

Quote :

"Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that’s downloaded, he said. The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said"

Um....
Hello? Big Brother? WTF?
The day the government forces me to put some shit like that in my cars, is the day I sell my cars and buy many many guns.

I MEAN, WHAT THE GODDAMN FUCK?!?!? YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO DO THIS TO COLLECT PER-MILE TAX:

Quote :

"The vehicle miles tax likely will promote the most contentious debate, as it would charge car and truck owners based on their odometer readings at annual inspections."

Why the bloody fuck is anyone even entertaining for one second the mere notion of mandatory GPS bullshit? Aside from the politically crippling privacy and liberty issues, IT ISN'T EVEN FUCKING NECESSARY! What the fuck is wrong with simply taking "odometer readings at annual inspections"????

The issue here is not where to be taxed, BUT THE TECHNOCRATIC AND FASCIST PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED BY IT'S IMPLEMENTATION!!

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2009 12:25:28 AM

^^ Yes HUR. The payroll tax takes 12.4% of a poor persons entire income. Meanwhile, anyone earning over $102k pays a flat fee of $12,648 (2008). So, someone earning $1 million will pay 1.26% of their income to the SS payroll tax.

Meanwhile, I forgot where I was reading it earlier today, but the numbers looked something like this: the bottom 50% of the population spends 4-6% of their income on fuel, while the top 50% spend 1-2% of their income on fuel. As such, if you double the price of gasoline you will tax the bottom 50% at 4-6% and the top 50% at 1-2%.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2009 12:31:20 AM

Quote :

"Fine. As fuel economy improves raise the gas-tax further. Or, here's a thought, spend less money. It costs far less money to maintain a road than it does to build one; why do we need to keep paying ever more money into transit budgets when all the money winds up being wasted building light-rail through suburban neighborhoods?"

Leaving aside wasteful but politically popular projects, suburbs will continue to expand around major metropolitan areas, and the need for more and larger roads will continue to increase.

New road construction (or simply, new transportation infrastructure) is just something you're not going to be able to escape when it comes to growing metropolitan areas. The question is how to do it in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

Quote :

"My assertion is that a per-mile tax is never a good idea fleet-wide. I believe cars will remain liquid fuel based for decades to come, so a gas-tax for most vehicles will remain effective. For those few that manage to go all electric, then tax them with a per-mile tax, or better yet tax their kwh, leave the rest of us alone."

I think this is a strong function of future fuel prices. Should we see a more sustained return to $4-5/gallon fuel, I think there will be significant impetus toward non-liquid fuels. The same is true if any form of a carbon tax is implemented.

Second, how do you tax per kWh? Electricity's electricity coming out of the outlet - the only way you could do this is put a special meter in every car charging station, including every home hosting an electric car. Thus, we are back where we started...

2/27/2009 12:41:36 AM

Quote :

"The fact is, a per-mile tax is EXTREMELY similar to a user-fee -- something that nearly every libertarian supports. Both taxes are bad, yes, but one can be better than the other, and both can be better than one."

And, get this, one can be better than the other and even better than two! It is simpler, doesn't require hiring another army of government investigators to police the nation's inspection stations and enforce payment. Also, it doesn't slap people 12 months after they don't even remember driving; it slaps them a week or two later when it comes time to fill up again, plenty of time to recognize the impact of your habbits and make adjustments before finding yourself in bankruptcy court.

And who gives a shit if it looks like a user fee? We live in a democratic society. I don't personally give a shit about Exxon's objections to being used as a tax-collection agency. Hell, it seems to me that you nutjob libertarians should be happy to have private corporations collecting taxes rather than the friggin' IRS.

Quote :

"A per-mile tax would be a more accurate measure of the usage of roads, not just of gas."

Why is gas-use not a good measure of road use? The damage inflicted upon a road scales almost linearly with weight. At the same time, fuel use also scales almost linearly with weight due to the effects of the tires upon rolling resistance. While changing the material of the tires will reduce fuel consumption, it does so across all weights (a hummer benefits from harder tires just as much as a Golf). So, no, it is not perfect. However, it is close enough when the costs associated with your system are factored in (enforcement costs, delayed payment shock, fraud, etc).

Quote :

"I think this is a strong function of future fuel prices. Should we see a more sustained return to $4-5/gallon fuel, I think there will be significant impetus toward non-liquid fuels. The same is true if any form of a carbon tax is implemented."

Why, that figure is still less than they already pay in Europe and we see all the impetus that generators toward non-liquid fuels... None whatsoever. Yes, it changes which fuel people oft for (diesel instead of gasoline), but it is still made from oil.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2009 12:48:00 AM

Quote :

"Why, that figure is still less than they already pay in Europe and we see all the impetus that generators toward non-liquid fuels... None whatsoever. Yes, it changes which fuel people oft for (diesel instead of gasoline), but it is still made from oil."

Actually, I would argue it's had a rather significant impact upon their transportation and city infrastructure. Not to mention their driving habits. Plus, biofuels and vegetable oil have made plenty of headway over in Europe - precisely because of fuel taxes. (The latter much to the irritation of EU regulators.)

America has a unique problem from Europe, however - we already have a lot of lower-density zoning - not every city is New York or Chicago in terms of density. Which means automobiles are a virtual necessity to most folks. Given that simply eliminating cars isn't necessarily an option, this creates a constraint problem - with $4 gas alone we saw a shift toward smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; were this sustained, I think we would see even more significant shifts in car-buying habits.

2/27/2009 12:55:13 AM

Quote :

"So would the per-mile tax. Simply lift the odometer reading at annual inspections. NO GPS!!!"

Incentive to tamper with the odometer is not a good idea.

I also do not want Uncle Sam following me with the eye in the sky. As mentioned early, the infustructure needed to apply this tax is outrageous. Not only do you have to install some electronic equipment into each vehicle, but the govt has to compile all the data and process it and charge you the tax somehow. Its all a lot of overhead. On top of all this, it is runs counter to all the Alternative fuels incentives. This is still a disincentive, even if heavy vehicles pay higher costs.

It makes too much cents to not just raise the flat rate at the gas pump.
* Cheap, no overhead expenses
* Incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
* No additional cost to car owner. i.e. it would only be a matter of time before the govt mandated that manufactures install GPS in new cars. Which consumers would pay for directly as the cost gets passed down.

How did we just spend 800bill and not take care of this shit in the first place?

Quote :

" TAX AND SPEND "

Quote :

" USA MEET CALIFORNIA "

2/27/2009 12:57:45 AM

^^ I would like to break it to you: to many folks in Europe automobiles are a virtual necessity. Single family homes are not unusual in Europe. Yes, Europe is different from America, but it is only by degrees. $7 gas has not rendered Europe unrecognizable to the average American.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ^]

2/27/2009 1:01:11 AM

Quote :

"Yes HUR. The payroll tax takes 12.4% of a poor persons entire income. Meanwhile, anyone earning over $102k pays a flat fee of $12,648 (2008). So, someone earning $1 million will pay 1.26% of their income to the SS payroll tax."

sorry i was thinking about income tax


^^ If Tax and Spend was the motto of the democrats

than

Spend, Spend, Spend was the motto of George Dubya. At least the liberals have enough sense to fund their pork spending.

2/27/2009 7:42:46 AM

if people are being charged and tracked per mile then there will be less incentive for them to drive places, as compared to if it was already wrapped into the price of gasoline which they would have to pay regardless. This lack of travel would cause negative economic impacts as people would not drive places and then spend money. The result would be revenue decay in other areas.


Gas tax is superior.

2/27/2009 9:48:31 AM

Quote :

"a hummer causes more damage to the roads than a Mini"

I think it's been shown that most SUVs (maybe Hummers excluded) do about the same or even less road damage than most sedans (again, maybe Minis excluded) because the tires on the SUVs are so much bigger than the tires on a normal car, the weight/sq inch is actually less on the big cars w/ big tires.

2/27/2009 9:52:48 AM

Quote :

"The heavy transportation industry needs to shift more business back to railroads. They actually already are as its a much, much, much more efficient way to transport goods. This heavy transportation industry punishes the roadways the most, not private automobiles."

Actually, they are, but railroads are facing the issue where tracks are becoming congested and widespread maintenance is needed. More infrastructure is going to be needed, and given how long it takes to lay rail these days...

I don't like the idea of a tax-by-mile, but I suppose that combining that with a raise in the fuel tax may be the only way to fairly raise additional highway funds.

The GPS idea is stupid. Even assuming their intentions are good, this scheme is so frickin' complex that the costs of implementing it is going to be high. Better to just read odometers during inspections and tax based on that then distribute the money to communities based on average traffic for all the major roads instead.

2/27/2009 10:00:14 AM

Quote :

"I think it's been shown that most SUVs (maybe Hummers excluded) do about the same or even less road damage than most sedans (again, maybe Minis excluded) because the tires on the SUVs are so much bigger than the tires on a normal car, the weight/sq inch is actually less on the big cars w/ big tires."

I don't see how. I believe the damage is caused by deformation of the roadway. And while that is lessenned on the immediate surface by increasing the surface area of the tires, the deeper layers of the roadway could care less how big the tires are, just how much weight is upon them. So, while lower weight/sq inch might help with surface cracking, only reducing the total weight will prevent sub-surface cracking and the development of pot-holes.

But again, this enters car design. Why would vehicle designers when faced with a vehicle weighing three times more put on tires with four times more surface area? Just for offroading ability?

2/27/2009 10:41:43 AM

I thought Obama wasn't going to raise my taxes? Wtf!

2/27/2009 11:00:33 AM

Obama be tukken yer monies

2/27/2009 11:09:54 AM

^^^ tire considerations go WAY beyond the scope of this thread. that's a thread for the Garage. I, with some other MEs and car nuts will help you out there if you want.

Quote :

"I think it's been shown that most SUVs (maybe Hummers excluded) do about the same or even less road damage than most sedans (again, maybe Minis excluded) because the tires on the SUVs are so much bigger than the tires on a normal car, the weight/sq inch is actually less on the big cars w/ big tires. "

Never heard that, although it makes sense to an extent (overall weight would still be a factor, i'm sure). Regardless, from what I understand, the difference is nearly negligable--I don't remember the numbers offhand, but I think that one tractor-trailer is something like 1000x harder on the roads than a car. It's kind of like, say, steel--you can deform it a little bit a nearly limitless number of times without hurting it, but if you deform it past a certain threshold, it takes few occurances to weaken/fatigue/break it, and it gets sharply worse the further you exceed that level.

At any rate, as much as I like cars, I don't want to see an increase in taxes related to them (although most of my commuting is short, the trips to pick up my daughter are not). Of course, a lot of my miles are on a motorcycle, which I presume would be taxed much less or not at all.

Also, with either GPS or odometer readings, you'd have a tough time accounting for off-highway usage. What about off-roading? Racetrack driving? Beach driving? The extensive grid of dirt roads that covers, say, Kansas? In addition, I'd have a REAL problem with GPS monitoring of my car, and if it got to the point where they used it for traffic enforcement, etc, I am fairly confident that I would find another place to live (i.e., not the United States).

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ^^^]

2/27/2009 11:18:29 AM

tax per mile?

this is one of the stupidest ideas out there

2/27/2009 11:24:49 AM

how in the hell are you going to calculate how many miles people drive on state/federal roads

2/27/2009 9:33:01 PM

As someone who drives nearly 100 miles a day for work, I clearly oppose this tax (or set of taxes and levies).

2/27/2009 9:36:37 PM

Quote :

"It costs far less money to maintain a road than it does to build one; why do we need to keep paying ever more money into transit budgets when all the money winds up being wasted building light-rail through suburban neighborhoods?"

1:1, yes. But considering the number and age of existing roads/bridges there are out there, more money is needed.



Being someone who enjoys driving (long road trips when I have the time), I would much rather pay an increased gas tax than tax per mile. The gas tax is easy to enforce and already taxes usage (true other fuel forms will be eating into it). I don't see how a tax per mile system could be enforced as easilly/reliably as the existing one.

2/28/2009 1:42:17 AM

a per mile tax with the rate based on weight is what i'd vote for

2/28/2009 9:57:02 AM

^ yes, great, and how are you going to calculate this while figuring in the amount people drive on private roads/parking lots/driveways/off-road/state,federal maintained roads on land that is already taxed or paid for by use

2/28/2009 10:04:08 AM

Isn't this proposed tax going to slaughter the trucking industry?

2/28/2009 10:14:13 AM

Quote :

"a per mile tax with the rate based on weight is what i'd vote for"

thats just ass

just increase the federal gas tax.

This way yuppie soccer moms driving their Ford Expeditions pay exponentially as they drive around town more (to get their lattes, pick up the kids, visit the country club, go back out because they forgot to by tampons) compared to the tax paid by a more conscious driver that uses alternative transportation when he can, combines tasks into one trip, and drives a more efficient automobile.

^Maybe setup some kind of deduction for commercial truckers. I am glad the day when everyone had to get the biggest SUV they could is over.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : k]

2/28/2009 11:35:16 AM

Quote :

"^ yes, great, and how are you going to calculate this while figuring in the amount people drive on private roads/parking lots/driveways/off-road/state,federal maintained roads on land that is already taxed or paid for by use"

i didn't argue that it's a perfect solution - i don't think i've seen one that is

2/28/2009 11:44:27 AM

Quote :

"yes, great, and how are you going to calculate this while figuring in the amount people drive on private roads/parking lots/driveways/off-road/state,federal maintained roads"

Irrelevant. The purpose of taxes are not to function as usage fees. It is to fund the government. Otherwise, how could you explain income taxes being used to oppress black people?

Quote :

"Isn't this proposed tax going to slaughter the trucking industry?"

No. The trucking industry will shrink as a result, but eventually we will simply have fewer truckers and their salaries/profits will return to present levels.

Now, this will drive up the profits of railroads and aircargo since their taxes will not have increased. And in the case of railroads, the market is so consolidated that it is unlikely that railroad profits on every route would ever return to their present levels. Which is fine, railroad stock prices go up, wealth transfer complete. That doesn't make it a bad thing; we must fund government somehow, and I'd rather do it through regressive consumption taxes than regressive income taxes.

2/28/2009 11:54:48 AM

Quote :

"how could you explain income taxes being used to oppress black people?"

LOL i thought most black people benefit from the current progressive income tax. Many of them pay next near taxes for those in the lower brackets. Yet receive a proportionally large amount of the gov't social services programs compared to other groups.

2/28/2009 11:56:36 AM

Quote :

"Irrelevant. The purpose of taxes are not to function as usage fees. It is to fund the government."

really, so even if I don't "use"(drive) any miles I would still need to pay this tax based on how many miles I drove (or didn't)?

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2009 2:24:34 PM

Quote :

"really, so even if I don't "use"(drive) any miles I would still need to pay this tax based on how many miles I drove (or didn't)?"

So pretty much the federal gov't is dipping its hands into something that has existed since the dawn of the automobile aka property tax. Just paid my $250 extortion check to the New Hanover County Dept of Revenue. Pretty much my car could not move 10 feet all year and i'll pay the same amount.

2/28/2009 2:55:10 PM

Quote :

"The last thing I want is the government tracking my damn car when I'm driving around. "

then stop driving on their roads

aren't you one of these capitalists who thinks private industry can save everything? why haven't we seen a private highway system yet?

[/not really my opinion, just making a point]

2/28/2009 3:07:54 PM

If you're intent on implementing a tax-by-mile scheme:

The state already has car registration information that could be used as a reasonable proxy for vehicles in use in a particular area (for passenger vehicles, at least).

Using vehicle registration information and EPA mileage estimates, an average MPG for an area (e.g. state or county) can be calculated. Miles driven and road usage would be estimated from the amount of gas purchased, and the applicable fee added to the fuel cost.

If an average weighted by number of vehicles is used, this method would favor efficient vehicles over non-efficient one; i.e., efficient (high MPG) vehicles would effectively pay less per mile than less efficient vehicles.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2009 4:26:55 PM

Quote :

"aren't you one of these capitalists who thinks private industry can save everything? why haven't we seen a private highway system yet?"

Private highways do exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States

Its not a very good business model for private companies, especially since the interstate highway system has already been built.

2/28/2009 4:52:38 PM

didn't want to make a new thread for this... i think it would be a great idea if a few people from here got this book and then discussed it:

http://www.greenhellbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=GHL002

4/5/2009 7:37:23 PM

Quote :

"Why institute another far more complicated taxing mechanism which imposes exactly the same incentives as the old tax? "

How would it be more complicated? When your car goes in for its inspection, they just look at the odometer to see how many miles you've driven since the last inspection.

4/5/2009 8:32:51 PM

If some politician would just propose shifting some existing tax to a resource tax (mainly gas tax), then it would have my resounding support. For instance, attach a guaranteed decrease in the income tax for the levy of a new gas tax.

It drives me nuts that they can continuously propose new taxes as if everything is hunky-doorie with it just becoming a new revenue stream for the government. It won't be. The government is running close to 33% of GDP right now, and anyone who thinks that can be done (or increased) without strangling the free market that it rides on is a numskull.

We need new taxes to wean people off fossil fuels, not to counter the monumental force of the federal budget shortfall.


---
And this idea of charging cars by anything other than gas usage also require about 70 IQ points to come up with.

Dur hur, this is a great way to accomplish our objectives... those SUV drivers certainly deserve to have a lighter tax leveraged per gas used.

4/5/2009 8:45:43 PM

yah i really don't understand this tax/mile deal. You'd think a gas tax pretty much encompasses this....

4/5/2009 8:58:27 PM

it's those darn efficient cars using less gas, alternative cars, and electric cars getting around the gas tax.

4/5/2009 9:04:26 PM

^^^^ Fine, let me fix that for you:
Why institute another complicated taxing mechanism which imposes exactly the same incentives as the old tax?

But I would still maintain that it is more complicated, since before all they had to monitor and police were a few dozen wholesale gasoline distributors to enforce the gasoline tax. Now, every single one of the nation's ten thousand inspection stations (which currently work for the state, not the Federal Government) would need to be monitored and policed to collect the mileage tax. And while it is very hard to refine and distribute your own gasoline in an effort to avoid the tax, finding a creative way to retard your odometer would be relatively simple.

And, again, it would tax heavy vehicles less than they otherwise would be taxed with a normal jump in the gasoline tax.

[Edited on April 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ^]

4/5/2009 9:06:33 PM

so would the government tax me on miles that i drive on my own property?

4/5/2009 9:37:14 PM

so i can leave my car running in my drive way until it runs out of gas and not pay a cent of taxes on gas

or i can sit in traffic with my AC running for an hour and travel a total of 5 miles and only pay 5 miles of tax

or i can travel 20 miles in 30 minutes and pay 20 miles of tax?


if you want to charge people to use the roads, use toll booths


or just keep the goddamn system we got. if it aint broke, dont fix it

4/5/2009 10:02:12 PM

^ I have fucking had it with you. damnit, STOP MAKING SENSE

4/5/2009 10:07:01 PM