US Contemplating 'Vehicle Miles Traveled' Tax 1306
dawgs72 writes "This week the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues, and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance. The proposed tax would be enforced through the use of electronic metering devices installed on all vehicles. The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
Why federal, again? (Score:5, Interesting)
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
Oh good - another industry "created" (Score:5, Interesting)
Win-win!
Re:Double dipping? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, but the logic is sound.
If you look at gas tax as a sort of sin tax to pay for the environmental damage you are causing, it's a perfectly reasonable tax because a Matrix "costs" more to the environment than a Prius does.
But that's not the limit to their cost. A Matrix may cost more to the environment than a Prius, but they're a similar size and weight, and so their "cost" to the roads they travel on is very similar.
So you charge for both. In this way, it makes sense to have two separate taxes rather than just raising the existing tax.
I think it's premature, though. Right now, we should be taxing gas more to encourage it's abandonment. Only after there is an overwhelming majority of hybrid and/or electric vehicles on the road should we be considering something like this, because once you're not using gas any more, you still need to fund roads...
4th power of the axle wieght (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather not see a miles traveled tax. It would be better to have a new vehicle fee proportional to the expected life of the vehicle and the 4th power of the axle weight. That cost gets passed along proportionally in the further sale of the vehicle.
Re:Double dipping? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know down at the farm we can buy farm diesel and farm gas for those vehicles which exclude fuel taxes meant for improving roads. You don't often find it in the city and most people don't know you can buy fuel for your lawnmower that is circa 30 cents a gallon cheaper (in this state at least) since it doesn't go on the road.
So indeed, charging the tax on gas for cars AND charging a usage tax for cars is double dipping.
Re:All this effort, just to avoid the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Not exactly-- What I have a problem with is not people becoming more educated, being able to afford their own homes, or to ensure quality education for their children, as many left wing pundits would claim about me.
What I have a problem with is senators and other government employees creating subsidy programs in both military research expenditure budgets, and in technology and infrastructure budgets that generate conditions that destroy actual market competition, with the goal of enriching themselves through enriching the corporations they offer the subsidies to (Shock, horror, Senators can own stock!).
"You just dont want to pay taxes so little Timmy O'Toole can get new crutches!" is a red herring. What I really dont want to pay taxes for is so Dick Cheney can get richer from killing people in Iraq, or so government regulators can get spiffy pension pension plans, while people are starving and suffering contrived forclosures (remember that leak about bank of america?) and losing everything.
Basically, I dislike being told I hate the poor, while watching senators do land grabs and Cesar spout soliloquies while Rome burns to the ground.
Clear enough for you?
The first round of cuts should be simple (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a larger navy than the next 11 countries combined, and 9 of those are our allies.
Step 1) Reduce navy to the save of the next 5 countries combined.
We have more agriculture department employees than there are farmers.
Step 2) Eliminate all farm subsidies and cut the agriculture department to the bone.
We fight too many wars
Step 3) Stop fighting wars and eliminate supplemental war expenditures.
Stop fighting the "war on drugs" and every other "war on..." that we have been loosing since the 1960s. Get over it already.
Step 4) Stop prosecuting and start taxing vices and victimless crimes.
I currently work as a defense contractor, and I know first that the government is incompetent and defense spending is largely wasteful.
Re:All this effort, just to avoid the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
State and federal governments are not spending too much money - if anything, they're not spending enough (and not only that but they're taxing the wrong people to get it). The job of the government is to provide for the security and well-being of its citizens. Cutting spending during a massive economic downturn is absolutely no way to do that job. Providing help through stimulus and job creation is.
I swear, it's like the only lesson all the small-government starve-the-beast meatheads learned from the Great Depression is to have a couple of wars when your country is going to shit.
Re:The Real Real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Cars put very little burden on road paving. Trucks are what damage roads. Tax them more and shipping will move to more efficient rail. Right now shippers are being subsidized by gas taxes providing them with low cost roads.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not really fair to call it NIMBY ... that's disparaging, and usually applies to people who are opposed to things for irrational reasons. What you're dealing with is people who have actually already paid into a system, expecting to get a certain low-density quality of life, and then later people chasing after that quality demanding the right to increase the density to suit themselves. That's why people who have established something that they like write it into the laws to protect their investments.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Interesting)
You know...at what point are the people and the states going to get pissed off and put a STOP to us giving so much $$ to the Feds only to allow them to used it to blackmail us?
Re:All this effort, just to avoid the real problem (Score:2, Interesting)
A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut.
That's like saying you can't find a number between 3 and 5 that isn't 4, therefore, we math cannot exist.
Of course huge ass programs need to be cut. And there are 4 areas of government that will need to come under serious fire:
- Social Security:
a. phase out for anyone that is above the poverty line between now and 75 years from now
b. reduce the tax to 1-2% of net earnings to encourage hiring
c. Match the (Life Expectancy - Retirement Age) delta from 1935 to today's Life Expectancy
- Medicare
a. We'll start with negotiating for drug prices. When was the last time *you* bought something for 40 million people and didn't get a volume discount?
- Department of Defense
a. No one in their right mind thinks we need to be the world's police anymore.
- Discretionary Spending
a. We don't have any money. There is no "entertainment" budget. Cut it all.
When we balance the budget, and we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, we can start spending again. If you're going to spend, you're going to have to tax. It's that simple. Focusing solely on Discretionary Spending (which only Republicans want to cut, Democrats are still holding out on even that), and ignoring DOJ, SS, and Medicare, which no one wants to cut, is a fool's game. It's senseless and no one should take any politician seriously when they say they want meaningful cuts but ignore these areas.
If Barack Obama gets his way, we'll spend $1.65 trillion this year (we still don't have a budget because of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid ineptitude from last year).
- that's a 7.5% *increase* in spending over last year
If John Boehner gets his way, we'll spend $1.55 trillion this year.
- that's a 6.5% *increase* in spending over last year.
So that brings up 2 questions:
1. what the hell are Democrats complaining about, when even John Boehner wants to increase spending by 3x the rate of inflation? Stop being children and deal with these problems like adults do when they balance their checkbooks.
2. why would anyone in their right mind think that either of these men aren't complete jokes?
These folks don't give a shit about our economy and deficit, and are just fooling around with the United States Economy as if it's their first chance to get a Nintendo and play Mario Bros. We are out of extra lives, and I don't see a Game Genie lying around anywhere.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:2, Interesting)
There's plenty of room for everyone in America to have a picket fence and a yard. The need for everyong to live close to one another is diminishing - we don't need to be close to the factory any more. As any environmental engineer will tell you, "the solution to pollution is dilution" - If people didn't live so bunched together in the first place, many of our environmental problems would vanish just on that basis.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to characterize your views, but it's amazing to me how many Shashdotters believe that road costs should be billed by usage, but medical costs should be born by everyone.
News flash: we all use the roads more indirectly, by the trucks that bring goods to the stores we shop at (or our doors), than we do in individual driving. Trying to bill by mile or gallon or whatever is just an excuse for more government employees and more intrusion by the government into your day-to-day activities. The % of the income taxes that you pay that goes to road building is just too small to sweat these sorts of details (unless your actual goal is government intrusiveness, of course).
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:3, Interesting)
No it's not a though call. That is the very definition of racism you bigot. Just because you think blacks are doing it to other blacks doesn't make it less racist.
Racism: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Let me define the problem for you because you and everyone who has modded you up seem to be retarded. Take yourself, whoever you are, and changed your skin color to black. You are the exact same person as you were before however, now a taxicab won't stop for you and that job you have will no longer be available to you. That's fucking racism and anybody who defends this state of affairs is a bigot. period.
You have no control over how other black people act and you have no control over you skin color and you should not be judged on that basis.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, that's why you live in a country where the government actually works for the people most of the time, instead of a fascist country like the USA where all the government cares about is keeping their corporate benefactors happy.
Obviously, Canada doesn't have such problems, as we can see from the OP's pictures of Vancouver. I've been there several times and it's a wonderful city, and puts US cities to shame. The downtown area is even very nice, safe, and fun to wander around, unlike US cities where you have to worry about being shot at and everything is dilapidated.
No need for electronic metering devices... (Score:4, Interesting)
...Just tax tires.
The more miles you drive, the sooner you have to replace your tires, and the more tax revenue they get, regardless of your means of propulsion.
And as a side benefit, the kind of stupid, potentially unsafe behavior that wears out tires more quickly will financially penalize the idiots doing it even further.