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."
Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
So, um, how are they going to split that between county, state, and federally-funded roads?
Infrastructure is infrastructure. Everyone benefits from having it. Putting this kind of administrative overhead on it just makes it more expensive *and* takes away the benefit.
I think the real problem is that people mostly can't afford to live close to where they work. This leads to a lot of inefficiency, as they waste lots of time and energy driving back and forth from their cheap suburbs to the higher rent districts that pay just barely enough to survive if you live a neighborhood a tier or two away. Relatively cheap transportation sorta creates this situation, but there has got to be better ways to solve this than by making transportation more expensive with all of this metering equipment.
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc. Get rid of suburban sprawl by zoning more parks and greenways. Maybe build some summer cottages / timeshares so people can still get away "to the country". Done! All the other countries are doing it :-P
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, how do you keep crime down as you increase population density? The most populated places near me are also the scariest.
Would you offer people money to move? I'm not just talking moving costs, I'm talking mortgage buyouts. A mass migration from the suburbs to the cities would break any family that still owed a significant amount on their mortgage. Who would buy their houses? They can't all become government owned timeshares can they?
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
Crime doesn't come from density, but from poor people.
Manhattan has surprisingly low crime now that rent starts at $1800/month, instead of $80/month like it used to be in the 70's.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4)
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
I mean, why bother living in a small apartment downtown when I can get a sprawling, waste of space out in the 'burbs, and drive 20 miles each way?
People raise kids in NYC and in other big cities. You can just put your kids in a private school, and they can take the train or the bus to get to where they want.
No, I think this is a great idea. Some of us ride bikes and take buses and trains. And we do not live out in suburbs, and even live in neighborhoods which are well connected with good, public transportation.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
And how is that a problem?
Ah, because governments don't want people getting what they want, they want to force the proles to live in Stalinist apartment blocks while only the Polibureau get houses in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
And how is that a problem?
Ah, because governments don't want people getting what they want, they want to force the proles to live in Stalinist apartment blocks while only the Polibureau get houses in the country.
People who drive large distances to work use lots of government subsidized resources. More cars on the road means we have to build and maintain larger highways. We need more emergency service providers (EMS, police, firefighters) to cover a larger area. Our economy becomes more sensitive to oil prices, because people who drive an hour to work each way suddenly feel poorer when oil prices rise. America's foreign policy has to be crafted to ensure we can get oil as a reasonable cost, and the price of the
Re: (Score:3)
I kinda get what you are feeling, but in reality, the government DOES want people getting what they want. The happiest people are the easiest to control and manage. This is true in prison as it is true in society. "No way" all you like, but happy people don't protest, don't demonstrate, don't riot and certainly don't attempt to oust their leaders from office.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem is that people living in those sprawling houses aren't usually willing to pay the true costs to do so.
I have no problem with people having the sprawling mansion in the country. What I have a problem with is that I have to pay for them to do so. I pay the same amount per month for garbage collection, recycling, water, and sewer that they do, but the cost to deliver those services actually costs less to my house closer in than it does to theirs further out.
This is why my taxes go up every single year, and by more than inflation. It's because the taxes paid by those in the new communities on the outskirts of the city do not cover the costs associated with providing them the services, so they raise everyone's taxes to compensate.
Live wherever you like, live in whatever type of house you like. But don't pass your costs on to me.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Because my "sprawling" 1280 sq ft. home in the suburbs (where I ride the bus 20 miles each way) costs me $723/month whereas rent would be over $1000/month and a mortgage would be well in excess of $1000/month in the city?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Informative)
> Because my "sprawling" 1280 sq ft. home in the suburbs (where I ride the bus 20 miles each way) costs me $723/month whereas rent would be over $1000/month and a mortgage would be well in excess of $1000/month in the city?
Where is this? Idaho?
Here in New York rent or mortgage is certainly over $3,000/mo.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
> Shitheads from New York City (unlike the normal people in the northern part of that state) seem to view NYC == World.
At least we don't think everyone else is a "Shithead".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But that's because there's a supply-demand issue. Everyone wants to live in the city, but there is limited housing.
Over here in Germany, the number of multi-family housing (apartment blocks) are tremendous, and all over the place in the cities. Most every shop, store, building, has tons of residential housing (varying from 1, 2, 3 or 4 bdrs) on top. And because there is so much available, it's really cheap to be living in dense housing in the city, close to the trains, and the parks, and the shops (which
The Real Real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
People who cavalierly wast resources should be paying this burden, not us people who are stuck with commutes, but thoughtful enough to buy vehicles which are misers on gas consumption.
I'm confounded when I drive through suburban neighborhoods and see 80% of the homes have at least one Pickup/SUV in the driveway - most of these are never going to be used for construction or off-road. They're the modern equivalent of the Station Wagon. If gas is so cheap these people are commuting with these, and I see them in large percentages on my daily commute, then gas is still too cheap. Get off that addiction, people!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This, The sooner gas hits $20/gallon, the better.
Re: (Score:3)
If (and it's a very if) the thinking behind this tax is to better recoup costs from people using public roads, it makes sense.
I haven't seen anything indicating that the energy efficient vehicles cause less wear & tear on roadways than gas guzzlers (though it logically makes sense with their lighter weight).
If the people are wasting a common resource then by all means tax the resource. If that resource is gas then tax gas. If that resource is the condition of the roadway itself, then we should be
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:The Real Real problem (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Extremely insightful.
And the reason trucks damage roads is the way they are taxed. Trucks are taxed per axle, thus by loading up each axle to the weight limit they pay the least tax. But high axle loads in trucks is the cause of the majority of road wear. If instead trucks were taxed based on axle weight, they would have more axles to carry the same load and significantly reduce road wear. We should turn all those 18 wheelers in to 56 wheelers, and roads would last a lot longer.
The axle load versus wear effect has been well known for at least a quarter of a century. We could fix it by making a two line change in the tax code, thus realigning the incentives. Why doesn't this happen? Because all the truckers have to replace a lot of expensive infrastructure. So the way to make this happen is to phase it in -- all new trailers pay the tax the new way, all old trailers can pay the old tax for 10 years if they were manufactured before a certain date. Ten years is a long time? *pffft*, if we had done this when the problem was first documented we would have been converted over more than a decade ago.
Re: (Score:3)
What wears out roads is mass per axle. This is a well known phenomenon. Not only do trucks have more mass per axle than cars by far, they are taxed per axle so they load each axle the maximum amount.
Road damage increases much more than proportionately with vehicle weight on a road surface. For example, if Vehicle A weighs 48,000 pounds and Vehicle B weighs 4,000 pounds, the damage done to the road by Vehicle A is far more than 12 times the damage done by Vehicle B.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/FTP_RES/docs/ [oregon.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh... the problem they think they're resolving with this is that vehicles are expected to continue using ever smaller quantities of taxed fuel, even no petroleum at all in some circumstance. Do you really believe that they'll stop at millage meters on cars if they find people are using bicycles and/or public transportation?
I do think it's a great way to level the playing field between gas guzzlers (the ones that tear up the road the most) and more efficient vehicles. How dare the less wasteful, lighter
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
That's a pretty gross generalization.
I mean, why bother living in a small apartment downtown when I can get a sprawling, waste of space out in the 'burbs, and drive 20 miles each way?
This depends on the conditions in the downtown area. In my experience, a house in the suburbs is considerably cheaper than an apartment downtown.
People raise kids in NYC and in other big cities. You can just put your kids in a private school, and they can take the train or the bus to get to where they want.
Only if you're made of money. The vast majority of people would not be able to afford a private school for their children.
No, I think this is a great idea. Some of us ride bikes and take buses and trains. And we do not live out in suburbs, and even live in neighborhoods which are well connected with good, public transportation.
Terrific. Now bring that to my city and we might sign on to it. But don't hold your breath - the politics behind public transportation are such that the people who actually need are usually the ones who can't afford it and politicians are loathe to do anything that actually affects rich people.
The real problem is it is safer out where I live (Score:4, Insightful)
I can leave doors open all day, I have left windows on the lower level of my home open all day, simply because of where I live which is the suburbs
Big city schools, yeah that is where its at, if at is graduating a small portion of your students and generally getting stomped by most schools in surrounding counties for GPA/SAT and graduation rates. Top it off with more chances for gang activity and I think you begin to see why people might not want to live in them.
You live your life and let the rest live theirs. NYC is special because of rent control and the like which has gone further than many other cities. Or perhaps you would prefer San Francisco which has nicely driven nearly all blacks from the town by pricing them out of the mark with new building rules and restrictions on what can go where.
Cities work for some people, they don't work for everyone. Atlanta is almost to racial parity but is that a good thing? It is a simple reason really, the city is getting too expensive for the poor to live in it and the poor are majority minority here. Yet people say "move to the city" which brings more yuppies who tear down or gut nice row homes jacking the costs to live in the neighborhood
Back to the story. It was to be expected with the push for better mileage vehicles that the method of taxation must change. Why they need meters I will never know, they can just do inspections and check your mileage. Of course with meters and GPS they can tell which roads you used. It all comes down to one thing.
Instead of spending the money they get and doing well with it they are forever looking for new sources and usually spending it before they get it
.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is that cities offer higher crime, worse public schools, more noise, less privacy, worse traffic -- all that and a higher $/sqft to boot. If I wanted to live in a claustrophobia inducing space, listen to all of my neighbors' arguments, enjoy little or no natural surroundings, fight over parking spots, and do my laundry off-site, I'd live at the office.
Cities are great if you're young enough that the social life makes up for it, or rich enough that you can isolate yourself from the downside
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just a case of some vendor making a product and trying to get millions of units sold and/or more big brother.
Oh no doubt, as there is already a perfectly good method* of getting the kind of information they require. But I think you missed a part in TFS.
The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally.
*Vehicles already have odometers, and don't all states require periodic emissions inspections? If they really wanted to tax based on actual miles traveled, they can just copy down the mileage then.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally.
*Vehicles already have odometers, and don't all states require periodic emissions inspections? If they really wanted to tax based on actual miles traveled, they can just copy down the mileage then.
I find this reason ironic because for half a decade they were handing out incentives for hybrid owners. But that's just how government works I guess.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid of suburban sprawl by zoning more parks and greenways.
Hmm then you won't have any space in the cities for people to live. Plus as one of those that lives in suburbia, I like having a backyard to bbq in, grow a garden, throw a ball with my kid or sit on my patio watching the birds in my birdfeeder.
If I lived in an apartment/condo highrise, I won't have those aspects to the quality of my life. Sure there are rooftop gardens and community parks. But when you live in a highrise with a 1000 other people, how much space on the rooftop garden can you reasonably get? Btw, I also have windows on all four sides of my house, which is wonderful for the indoor plants without using grow lights.
Btw, what are the prices of a condo in NYC that overlook Central Park? I bet it's quite a bit more than my humble home in suburbia.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Informative)
You can't. It's a size issue. this idea of everyone living in a city is absurd.
Sure you can - It just takes city planners with vision. Look at these pictures from my city (Vancouver, Canada). I have lots of friends raising families in the city, with parks, schools, supermarkets nearby and all walkable.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2734/4112965898_7112701b00.jpg [flickr.com]
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/08/70/45/400_F_8704550_q9V0W99I76eCkun4RbXmAi8sjTieGEix.jpg [fotolia.com]
The buildings you see in those pictures are all residential.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, that might work for little cities like Vancouver.
Now try the same thing with the city I am from (Chicago, IL), with 6 times that population. You can't just take your 30ish story buildings and turn them into 180 story buildings. Nor will you have enough space for grocery stores 6 times the size, nor will the parks accommodate 6 times the number of people, roads accommodating 6 times the number of cars, buses, trains, etc.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
Try Seoul. Try Frankfurt. Try Tokyo. Big cities have been done successfully, Americans just don't understand them. The main reason is that the American still includes a house with a picket fence and a yard. Of course that doesn't work after certain population densities are reached. The solution to this is to understand that there's nothing magical about owning a house.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Informative)
Are you fucking kidding me?
Perhaps if your friends are super rich they can afford to live in vancouver city proper. MOST people with kids live in the suburbs, unless they live in their parents old house or some other stroke of luck. There was even an article on it in the tyee recently: Vancouvers Downtown Chases out kids [thetyee.ca]
Not to mention the fact that EVERYONE drives in the lower mainland.. EVERYONE.. Taking the transit is simply not an option as its between 3.75 to 5.00 each way from any suburb. Which is MORE than it costs for gasoline on the same trip, even with gas being 1.31/L currently. Source [translink.ca]
Vancouver is HORRIBLY designed. We have very poor density compared to many other urban centres, with sprawling "vancouver special" houses which are built wide, not tall due to regulations. You have these choke points of bridges which clog up and waste tonnes of time every day. Even in my 7km commute to downtown (read BARELY in the suburbs), generally takes an 30-45 minutes in rush hour. And thats using plenty of shortcuts.
Now these condos you mentioned, from your image it looks to be olympic village. Want to know what it costs to live there? Go take a look: Olympic Village Pricing [thevillage...ecreek.com]. You will see that it costs 500k -1M for a 2 bedroom 800sqft apartment in your "city planners with vision" utopia. How the fuck is that affordable for a family???
Sure if you think its a good idea to raise a family in an 800sqft shoebox with only concord pacifics Ãvisionà of "shared green space" (2 acres for like 10k people to relax in) Source [vancouversun.com]. But honestly, i think you are rich, terribly deluded, dont have kids over 4 years old, or simply misinformed.
The bottom line is that you are wrong to use vancouver as a good model of anything sustainable or affordable. Vancouver, where you cant get a 1200sqft house for under 850k. Vancouver, where there is a whole site making fun of the fact that you cant tell million dollar houses from crack house [crackshackormansion.com].
Vancouver has a LONG way to go before it is hospitable to families or even pedestrians! When was the last time you walked to surrey from downtown? To burnaby? To richmond?
Re: (Score:3)
If you make it desirable to live there, you're going to drive prices up to the point where only the well-to-do can afford it. But the well-to-do aren't going to mow the lawns, clean the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The use of petrol is a detriment to our society. Those who use less of it should be rewarded and those who use more of it punished.
Having been an environmentalist at one point, I can tell you that BEING ALIVE is a detriment to society. Humans produce tons and tons of pollution each year. Other forms of energy also causes damage, as does food production (especially meat), and human waste products (urine, feces,methane), and the draining of water supplies/lakes/rivers. It makes no logical sense
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:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that not everyone wants to live in a city. My dad commutes an hour each way to/from work simply because my parents wanted to live somewhere rural and quiet, and actually have some land. Both my brother and I are out of school so that's irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the practicality of living in a city. A lot of people just hate that kind of environment. If they wanted to live near the office they could afford to do so, they just don't want that.
A better investment would be improving other infrastructure so that telecommuting is more practical. Maybe not five days a week (for most people, it's very hard to keep on task without spending at least a day a week in the office), but even if it's only useful one day a week you're still removing 20% of the commuting. Never mind that people will be happier because they can spend more time with their kids/spouses/etc, not wasting their own time driving around, and can avoid at least some office politics. And, oh yeah, we have better communications infrastructure, which helps us stay relevant to the rest of the world.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh, I think it's kinda absurd that everyone would live in a contiguous suburban metropolitan complex that extends from Virginia to Maine, and commute an hour each way to work, and consume 20-40 gallons of gas a week between two vehicles just to keep up with the nominal pace of life. Yet here we are.
It's kinda sad that people haven't really figured out how to get along in close proximity with each other, that we've kind of moved from huts and even row houses to single family detached homes with picket fences, and we still sick the HOA on each other at every opportunity. But that's a political problem, and one that probably deserves a political solution, or better yet a diplomatic one (does anyone even do diplomacy these days? or is that considered "weak"?).
Anyway, this whole suburban sprawl problem was more or less inadvertently created by the Eisenhower Interstate System anyway, where it made it cheaper to build out instead of up. So everyone who could afford to (by all this new infrastructure) left the city for the rolling meadows (clear-cutting the trees and naming the streets after them when necessary) the US cities were kinda left to rot and decay. But the city still has the draw of industry and business around what little pieces of "cultural" core remained, maybe surrounded by a few layers of impoverished neighborhoods that couldn't make the rush and were abandoned by the more affluent tax base. And now that the interstates are clogged up (including all of the extra "interstates" they built to deal with the extra rush-hour-only load), the problem is finally bad enough for people to start successfully promoting "smart growth" initiatives, where population centers build up around mass transit instead of out.
In any case, I think the problem is more about how we build our living/working arrangements, rather than our transportation system (which had no small part in determining how our living/working arrangements got so screwed up in the first place). But tweaking the transportation system probably isn't going to directly address the real problem of being too spread out and wasting too much resources and energy crossing acres of dull suburban wasteland to get to the few places worth going to.
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you can, but local and city zoning regulations force developers to limit the number of stories and units in their developments (tall buildings are ugly!), how much of their land they can use for building and how much must be allocated to set-backs (green space!), how much of the land can be developed for mixed-use and commercial (usually none), how much of the land must be allocated for parking, and on and on. Some of these rules have a legitimate purpose but most of the time it's NIMBYism on planning boards and city councils, trying to force a town to look like an artificial 1950s ideal of what a suburb should be, without regard for what people want to buy, where they want to live and work, what developers want to build, and what would save everyone money.
Re: (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, Insightful)
That's an interesting tangent you take. So you are saying the idea that people want to raise their families in suburbs has to do with racism? Wow. Quite a conclusion you jump to there. But in defence of "white people" everywhere I have to say this:
Even black city cab drivers don't [prefer] to pick up black passengers. That can't be just "racism" as much as it is a belief that they are dangerous or otherwise untrustworthy. That reputation, even amongst themselves, has to have come about somehow. Regardless of any given causes or sources, there is a general fear of black people based on their reputations for crime and violence. I am not saying it is deserved or to be believed. I am saying the reputation exists. Is it racism? Tough call. I can say that as a person who is discriminated against based on his ethnicity as well as his sex that it's "not fair" but I have no defence against it -- white males are also presumed evil and predetermined to be untrustworthy in many circles.
Re: (Score:3)
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc.
You can't. It's a size issue. this idea of everyone living in a city is absurd.
Bullshit. The only problem is that cities tend to have *gasp* BLACK PEOPLE in them, and we simply can't have THAT!
No, the only problem is that cities generally tend to have people like YOU in them. And sadly, it's not legal to euthanize you... yet.
Re: (Score:3)
What part of the constitution gives the Federal Govt. the power to require all of this?!?!?
How are they going to bastardize the interstate commerce clause to force this piece of shit regulation on the states and the citizens of each state?
Re:Sounds like a headache (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they going to bastardize the interstate commerce clause to force this piece of shit regulation on the states and the citizens of each state?
They won't require it. They'll just threaten to withhold interstate funding from any state that refuses to comply.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, if this comes, there will be no more fuel tax.
Riiiiight...
Double dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this already covered by the gas tax, which is inherently incurred on a "per mile" (gallon, really) basis?
Anything that can be taxed, will. Those things which can not be taxed will be fined.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
100% of current tax not going to roads (Score:3)
Depending on your state & locality, not all of your motor fuels tax is going towards road construction & repair. In North Carolina, about 25-30% of that money is being diverted into the general fund.
So when a politician calls for an increase in tax "because we need good roads", ask him where the rest of the money he collected went that was supposed to have gone to replacing bridges in imminent danger of collapse.
Chip H.
Re:Double dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Another way to look at it is it will tax the vehicles that use the public roadways, not just the vehicles that consume gas.
The gas taxes would remain though. So don't worry, fuel efficient cars will still enjoy a tax benefit..
Re:Double dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still double dipping. They're considering it instead of an increase in the current gas tax.
If they eliminated the gas tax and replaced it with this, their stated reason would be an acceptable one.
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...
Re:Double dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, the gas tax is NOT a sin tax, it is a tax to fund roads. At least that is it's stated purpose. I have no problems paying a tax for roads whether it be gas or by mile. Governments need revenue to build and maintain roads. I understand that and willing to pay my share.
What I don't agree with are "SIN" taxes of any type. I see taxes as a way for the government to raise the funds they need to operate. Not a way for them to dictate how people should live and what they should or should not do.
Re:Double dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Double dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a logical usage taxation for vehicles: Tax the tires. They have a limited lifespan which is already measured in miles. Additionally, the lifespan is reduced if they are not maintained properly (which also leads to increased wear on the roads). Wear out the tires sooner, you'll have to buy new tires sooner, which means that more taxes will be paid for higher roadwear vehicles. The more tires your vehicle has, the more wear you are likely placing on the roads, and thus the more taxes your vehicle will be providing for road maintenance. You can even have varying taxes based on the intended usage of the tires: Farm tractor tires would pay less in road maintenance taxes (since they spend most of their time off the road). Racing tires would also pay less (perhaps almost none) since they would rarely, if ever, be used on public roadways.
Re: (Score:3)
From the summary:
"The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
Yeah, that part doesn't make so much sense... the heavy vehicles are the ones that create most of the wear and tear on the infrastructure. You could probably have a thousand passenger cars drive by and still not cause as much strain as a single loaded 18-wheeler :-P
Re: (Score:3)
They may modify the numbers, but they'll never abolish federal income tax and institute a VAT, for example.
Re:Double dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easily solved. Increase the gas tax. Not only does this restore the revenue, but it creates greater incentive for those who drive inefficient vehicles to change to more efficient ones.
A mileage tax might seem to make sense in some ways, but imagine the logistics of collecting. Unless you are going to make every road a toll road (and good luck with that project), a fuel tax increase is going to be far easier and cheaper to implement.
Just a CBO report, not "being considered" (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed.
The CBO reports on all sorts of things. The existence of this report only means that one person in congress asked them for a report. It does not mean that congress as a body is even considering such a thing, much less likely to do it.
For "nerds" a lot of people sure are susceptible to propaganda.
Re:Double dipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
A new tax is not a tax increase.
Why tax Hybrids and Guzzlers equally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use less gas? An excise tax on gasoline is an excellent way to do so.
Re:Why tax Hybrids and Guzzlers equally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Becasue ti's about road repair. and guzzlers will still pay extra in tax in that they still need gas.
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.
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?
Re:Why federal, again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Constitution? We still have one of those?
Re: (Score:3)
Constitution? We still have one of those?
We need a tax on these congressional meatheads and their inane laws that line their pockets, about 30 to 50 years would be appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?"
of course, but tlak to your state. They do NOT have to take the funds the Feds offer.
People like to blame the feds, but it's the states they give power to the feds.
To answer you immediate question:
Even if you do not use interstate or roads maintain or built with fed money (you do) , you still benefit from the systems. You get stuff delivered to you with those roads, companies can operate because of those roads, transportation is more efficient with thos
Re: (Score:3)
Surely part of the problem with the Constitution as it stands is that it was written in the 1790s, when they didn't pave roads etc. The Founding Fathers had some great ideas, but perhaps now is the time to start looking at a new constitution - one that incorporates freedom of speech at the outset, rather than being bolted on the side like it was an afterthought.
There's no need. What needs to happen is for the government and courts to treat the 10'th Amendment with save vigor that they treat the first.
No Inscentive to be more efficient with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to create a GIANT system with many layers of government, to take more money based on actual miles driven. But we already have that - called a gasoline tax. At least with the gas tax I have an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car if I must commute (I must, far too). With this I would have much less. I think this is just to avoid being the "bad guys" that raise the gas tax. I thought one of the points of the gas taxes was to encourage efficiency.
Oh good - another industry "created" (Score:5, Interesting)
Win-win!
All this effort, just to avoid the real problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Oh dear-- I just imagined government workers being cautious with other people's money! How silly of me!
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes have been cut multiple times since the early 80s, while spending has increased. I'm all for cutting taxes, AFTER we get our spending under control. The govt should only be able to cut taxes if receipts > expenses AND there is no current deficit. It'll be a long time before our budgets are balanced unless we lay off the entire military or let poor people start dying in the streets. Had we been a little more responsible over the past 30 years none of this would have been an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:All this effort, just to avoid the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
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: (Score:3)
Well, it's easy to reduce the budget by simply decreasing the amount by which existing funding for annual budget items is increased. Easy logically, that is, not necessarily politically. It's not like the choice is between eliminating Social Security and halving the federal budget, or increasing spending by adding services and creating new government. The third choice is to simply maintain current spending.
That said, as a "fiscal conservative", I would change Social Security at the very least by implementin
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?
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I have no problems with tax money providing a social safety net (and would prefer to see the US have Western Europe-style "social nets"). To steal from another Slashdotters signature, "I like taxes; they buy me civilization."
What I want is efficient spending. Get me the biggest bang for my buck.
Conversely, I *do not* want my tax money wasted. I've worked for the federal government through the DOE on an LHC detector. I've *seen* how the money is wa
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from the DoD, the government really isn't spending too much money. The real issue is that they aren't taxing sufficiently to maintain a viable government without going into debt. Things like roads, schools, law enforcement and other things cost money, you can't continually to cut them without damaging or eliminating the tax base.
But, the other bit of it is that the voters reward the politicians that are willing to go into hock to start pointless wars and cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. We
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Great idea! Slow down economic activity until economic activity speeds up!
Re: (Score:3)
It is a fallacy that government subsidies enrich the economy, at least as far as government income is concerned.
Example-- I, as the government, give a subsidy to an energy company so that they can provide the necessary infrastructure my population requires. The energy company accepts my subsidy with sweaty palms, then promptly invests that money in an overseas venture. "We can't possibly track individual dollars as they move through our enterprise!" they proclaim. By "pure coincidence," a large sum of mone
Re: (Score:3)
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
Do you offer this as fact or opinion?
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Funny thing is, we can always afford wars half-way around the world and tax cuts for billionaires, but can't afford to keep the country running.
And that's with a "liberal" in the White House.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Raising taxes from historically low, unsustainable levels? Preposterous!
Re: (Score:3)
Lowering spending from historically high, unsustainable levels? Ridiculous!
The last time we were spending this high of a % of our GDP on government we were using it to beat the Nazis.
Gasoline tax is better (Score:4, Insightful)
If this were really the case then the gasoline tax is both a great proxy for miles driven and the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles consume more gasoline and also damage roads more per mile). It also fosters the purchase of lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Cars already have this device installed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cars already have this device installed (Score:4, Insightful)
...and they're completely tamper proof.
So you believe the correct answer is to install a second, hardened odometer that provides no benefits whatsoever to the owner. You work as a contractor, don't you?
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.
Which makes the idea worse. (Score:3)
Not only do you still have your Big Brother, you have less control of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they're only taxing on federally funded highway/interstate miles, not on local infrastructure.
And they use the GPS, so that way there's no problems with knowing where your vehicle is.
You know, because that local road that sits underneath the highway is simple for the GPS to figure out...
Or the frontage road that's 20 feet to the side of the highway...
Re:Something's rotten in Washington... (Score:3)
A Republican's wet dream forsooth.
The report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who held a hearing on transportation funding in early March. In that hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the Obama administration is hoping to spend $556 billion over the next six years, much of which would go to federal transportation improvement projects.
I don't see a whole lot of Republicans in this story...
The idea that Republicans are in the pocket of big business and the Democrats are not is demonstrably false. They all are, and the sooner we all start focusing on what is realistic, reasonable and feasible instead of ideals and supporting "our" team, the better off we will all be.
Re:Non starter (Score:4, Informative)
Anything that monitors my car will not sit well with me.
Oh wait, or anyone at all.
Unless you have a car that was built pre-OBD2 (older than 1996) your car already has this in place. PID 31 [wikipedia.org] records how many miles your car has traveled since it was last reset.