Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   Taxed by the mile?? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/83548-taxed-mile.html)

Carno 02-16-2005 07:54 AM

Taxed by the mile??
 
Text

Quote:

(CBS) College student Jayson Just commutes an odometer-spinning 2,000 miles a month. As CBS News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, his monthly gas bill once topped his car payment.

"I was paying about $500 a month," says Just.

So Just bought a fuel efficient hybrid and said goodbye to his gas-guzzling BMW.

And what kind of mileage does he get?

"The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on the highway," says Just.

And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead.

Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already started road testing the idea.

"Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim.

Kim and his team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.

"So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a certain fee which will be, let's say, one tenth of what someone pays if they drive 100 miles," says Kim.

The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe.

The system could also track how often you drive during rush hour and charge higher fees to discourage peak use. That's an idea that could break the bottleneck on California's freeways.

"We're getting a lot of interest from other states," says Jim Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. "They're watching what we're doing.

"Transportation officials across the country are concerned about what's going to happen with the gas tax revenues."

Privacy advocates say it's more like big brother riding on your bumper, not to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars.

"It's not fair for people like me who have to commute, and we don't have any choice but take the freeways," says Just. "We shouldn't have to be taxed."

But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.

© MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Ummm, this seems like an invasion of privacy to me. I'd prefer not to have the government know where I am at all times. I thought the black boxes in cars were bad enough, but this is blatant Big Brother. I mean, they'll try to say there are other benefits, such as police knowing where to find your car, etc, but I don't think that outweighs the government knowing where you are. I don't think the government has any right to know where I am.

Thoughts?

the_marq 02-16-2005 08:13 AM

I don't really see privacy being the big issue here. According to your article the only information being reported is odometer readings, so they can tell how far you have gone, but not where you went and when you went there. It's not like a GPS signal reporting your every movement.

However, what is completly asinine is the increase in taxes paid by those who drive more fule efficent cars. Using this same logic they could start charging "cancer tax" to those who stop smoking as they would no longer be paying the high taxes on cigarettes.

dogzilla 02-16-2005 08:21 AM

A milage based tax seems reasonable, but it needs to consider vehicle weight since the damage done to roads by a SUV is more than that done by a subcompact. I also don't agree with a time-based charge since some people have no choice but to drive during peak hours. It would be nice if it also considered fuel efficiency and emissions to still encourage improvement in those areas.

Cadwiz 02-16-2005 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla
A milage based tax seems reasonable, but it needs to consider vehicle weight since the damage done to roads by a SUV is more than that done by a subcompact. I also don't agree with a time-based charge since some people have no choice but to drive during peak hours. It would be nice if it also considered fuel efficiency and emissions to still encourage improvement in those areas.

I have to agree with everything you say except the time thing. If some people "have to drive" during peak hours, thats probably what makes them "peak" hours.

And as far as having a gps to tell how far you've driven, the same could be done with a trip odometer that is reset every time fuel is put in the car. No need to know where I've been, just how far.

laconic1 02-16-2005 08:50 AM

That is ridiculous to punish someone for driving a fuel efficient vehicle while allowing the gas guzzling land barges that actually do most of the wear and damage to the roads to not be taxed so heavily. A mileage tax is stupid regardless of vehicle because someone who puts a lot of highway miles on a vehicle, whether its a 80,000 pound semi or a Geo Metro is not as abusive to the roads, since there isn't as many stops, starts and turns on a highway, all of which result in more wear on the road.

Carno 02-16-2005 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_marq
I don't really see privacy being the big issue here. According to your article the only information being reported is odometer readings, so they can tell how far you have gone, but not where you went and when you went there. It's not like a GPS signal reporting your every movement.

In for a dime, in for a dollar....

Right now it will only report your mileage.. in the future, who knows?? I'd prefer to not have anything on my car at all. Why not just increase the damn gas tax? Hybrids still need gasoline to operate. There are other ways to collect taxes to pay for the roads than to install devices on our cars.

dogzilla 02-16-2005 09:58 AM

What this sort of comes back to, minus the peak hour surcharge, if you factor in car weight and fuel efficiency is the same gas tax we have today. Maybe consider what it really costs to maintain the roads and then set the gas tax appropriately.

AngelicVampire 02-16-2005 10:07 AM

Its a good idea, a hybrid/fuel efficient car puts the same stress on a road as a standard car, a larger car = more stress.

So basically there might be 5 bandings:

1: Motorbikes/ULV - 1x
2: LV - 1.2x
3: standard car 1.5x
4: SUV - 2x
5: Vehicles over 3Tonnes 3x

So a light vehicle like a motorbike pays just the charge, a regular car pays 1.5x as much as a motorbike etc...

It makes more sense, if you also keep the tax on the fuel then it encourages people to drive fuel efficient light cars (less environmental damage)... if people want to drive an SUV getting 1m/g then they can... but it costs them a lot more because their environmental impact is far greater than the person driving the fuel efficient car.

Remember that the gas tax was designed to tax fairly across all vehicles... the more you use the more you drive the more you pay. However as cars get more efficient and not lighter then you have to pay more...

wnker85 02-16-2005 10:20 AM

I am against this idea, Look at it in the long run. This will cause truckers to pay more tax, cause the cost of goods to rise, then the sales tax will cost more on goods because of the % from the higher price.

Then what about toll roads, I already pay to drive on those. Will we be taxed twice. What about interstates, those are paid for by taxes that I pay yearly to the federal goverment and the fed. gas tax as well. Or people who dont drive on public roads. There are many private roads that the goverment doesn't take care of so they shouldn't get tax money for it.

I truely doubt that our loving goverment will get rid of a tax for another. If we allow this to happen then, most likely, we will get taxed for gas and milage in the end.

wnker85 02-16-2005 10:37 AM

One more thing, the way that they are going to get your milage is by tracking your car electronically. Then they can track you where ever you are and watch you. And that is an invasion of privacy.

lurkette 02-16-2005 11:36 AM

So increase the gas tax. That way people who are using fewer MPG will still pay less than people driving gas-guzzlers, and the government gets its funding. Seems like that would offer even more incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars.

flstf 02-16-2005 11:42 AM

As I recall the water utility in Seattle charged more for water because the usage went down. They said it costs x amount to deliver the water and since folks were using less, they had to charge more per gallon. I guess the highway folks are thinking along these same lines.

Lockjaw 02-16-2005 11:49 AM

Exactly.
This is bass ackwards and smacks of beuraucrats trying to find a way to justify their jobs more than actually coming up with feasible and just solutions.

It's ridiculous and the whole GPS thing is just the first step to knowing were every citizen is at every moment of the day and that's just not right. What next? Making every person in New York wear a pedometer so they can charge people for using the sidewalks?

moot1337 02-16-2005 12:05 PM

Upkeep/etc for mass amounts of people is the reason taxes exist; taxes are *relatively* annonymous in this regard, and don't single people out... what this is bordering into is a usage fee, as would be charged by a private corporation, rather than a government unbiased against the people... I pay taxes so I can use any/all of those government provided things, not just one of them...

Corporatization leaking into government... interesting.

guthmund 02-16-2005 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette
So increase the gas tax. That way people who are using fewer MPG will still pay less than people driving gas-guzzlers, and the government gets its funding. Seems like that would offer even more incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars.


Exactly. Those that use more gas will have to fill up more often and subsequently pay more of the 'gas tax.' That seems, to me at least, the way to go, if you have to have a 'go' at all.

The government gets it's money, it 'penalizes' those that use more gasoline and all without having to strap a box on your car.

G_Whiz 02-16-2005 02:52 PM

Living in California, I've heard this discussed for a few months. The key point always keeps coming back to a way to keep tax collections up. Before they go there, they are going to have to deal with one big issue.

California has one of the highest state taxes on gas in the nation. But, they keep taking money out of the transportation system to balance the budget. They did this before we had a huge budget problem. It's just another source of money for the General Fund.

So, if they tax based on mileage, how do they assure that the funds will be used for that maintenance, repair and upgrades? There is no history that it has ever happened before.

Until they can convince the electorate that will happen, the new tax system won't stand a chance. California voters have a history of passing initatives that override what the politicians want to do. That's what the Governator relies on to threaten the Legislature today.

animosity 02-16-2005 03:21 PM

This is absolutely insane. I do not even know how to respond to such a thing. RIDICULOUS!

I'd rather privatize all roads, and pay tolls every 5 miles than have the government on my ass about how far I am driving.


<---- that is how I look right now :mad:

Psycho Dad 02-16-2005 04:27 PM

Privacy? Were the government actually able to track where people drive and how far, does anyone think that they would really want to try to track the millions of cars on the road? We can't find Osama Fucking Bin Laden in a rock pile. Why the hell would we want to track minivans on their way to buy groceries? The sky ain't falling here people.

Now for the taxes, I'd like the government to do the same thing I do when I forsee a decline in revenue, spend less money.

Carno 02-16-2005 04:36 PM

Well if Osama drove a car with a GPS unit on it, they'd find him pretty quick :p

And it's not that everyone would be tracked, but with a GPS unit on your car, the government could track you if they ever decide they want to.

This Big Brother shit starts one small step at a time.

Rodney 02-16-2005 06:18 PM

Well, there's one other thing that you consume while driving besides gas: rubber.

Instead of a mileage tax that requires hooking into your odometer directly, why not just tax tires according to their rated mileage, at time of purchase? The more miles a tire is rated for, the higher it's taxed. The more you drive, the more tires you wear out and replace, and the more tax you pay. Vehicles registered in the state in question would have to either buy tires in that state, or have the tires assessed and taxed when they were brought into the state (if mounted on the car elsewhere). Each tire would have to carry some kind of electronic key that could be read, to prove that it was a "state tire."

There are some weaknesses here, but it's a fun idea to play with.

Fremen 02-16-2005 06:58 PM

I predict a run on 5 gallon gas cans.

flstf 02-16-2005 07:08 PM

The gasoline tax and/or the mileage tax seems to hit the people least able to pay more than the affluent. People who can't afford to buy or rent in close to the city or can't afford one of these fancy new cars will pay more.

guthmund 02-16-2005 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
The gasoline tax and/or the mileage tax seems to hit the people least able to pay more than the affluent. People who can't afford to buy or rent in close to the city or can't afford one of these fancy new cars will pay more.

You know, you're absolutely right. I didn't even consider this when I posted and I should've.

The only thing I can think of right now is maybe some payment formula that takes into consideration the miles a person drives via their odometer and their level of income. That, however, would make it ridiculously complicated and impractical.

spived2 02-16-2005 10:03 PM

I think it's rediculous to consider taxing for the amount of miles a person drives. If a person is broke and needs to drive to the next town to apply for a job or something, and he spends his last 5 dollars on gas in his fuel efficient hybrid, does that mean someones going to take the money he doesnt have just for driving down the road?

When are flying cars going to be mainstream so we don't have to worry about upkeep of roads anyhow?

Nisses 02-17-2005 01:53 AM

They'll probably make it so that those aircars need a special surface to glide on...

but this whole thing is basically stupid, it takes away any real incentive to drive efficient, alternative cars. Then what's the point in having em?

lurkette 02-17-2005 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
The gasoline tax and/or the mileage tax seems to hit the people least able to pay more than the affluent. People who can't afford to buy or rent in close to the city or can't afford one of these fancy new cars will pay more.

Ooh, you're right, I forgot about the regressive tax thing :-/

OK, how about this....tax cuts for fuel-efficient cars, car-pooling, and using mass transit, offset by massively higher taxes on inefficient cars and luxury vehicles?

This whole thing is kind of stupid, compartmentalized thinking, anyhow. So the revenues from gas taxes go down - big whoop. Supposedly it should be offset by lower health costs from polluted air. You're just shifting savings from one area to another.

ObieX 02-17-2005 07:40 AM

I'd rather see them spend time on cutting nedless programs or bloated prorams that ehy have that are wasting all this money. Adding a milage tax will end up costing them more because they'll h ave to have the sytem set up. All the gas stations will have to install something on every pump, and every car will have to have something placed inside, etc. This is a dumb idea on many levels, implementation being the worst part.

Carno 02-17-2005 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette
Ooh, you're right, I forgot about the regressive tax thing :-/

OK, how about this....tax cuts for fuel-efficient cars, car-pooling, and using mass transit, offset by massively higher taxes on inefficient cars and luxury vehicles?

Yeah but that's still the same result, because people who don't have a lot of money will be the ones driving the inefficient cars.

Amnesia620 02-17-2005 09:03 AM

Poverty is what I'm concerned about. Some people, when they go to fill up at the gas station, can only afford a few dollars...would the GPS "calculation" made add dollars onto the bill of sale?

In example: If you can only get $5 in gas and start filling up but you've driven $15 worth in GPS road taxes - which it says it would add to your bill...wouldn't you pay $20??? Or would it let you know before hand??

TM875 02-17-2005 09:17 AM

Here's an idea... why doesn't the government just spend its money on road crews that a) do work and b) don't screw it up. The local expressway near me took SIX YEARS to just add a shoulder and enlarge the on-ramps for just 6 miles of highway. Talk about inefficiency.

Don't punish people for driving hybrids, but don't punish people for driving inefficient cars. The government itself is the problem here, not the users of the roads.

wnker85 02-17-2005 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TM875
Here's an idea... why doesn't the government just spend its money on road crews that a) do work and b) don't screw it up. The local expressway near me took SIX YEARS to just add a shoulder and enlarge the on-ramps for just 6 miles of highway. Talk about inefficiency.

Don't punish people for driving hybrids, but don't punish people for driving inefficient cars. The government itself is the problem here, not the users of the roads.


So true, the Gov just wants more money to use to pay their buddies for crappy raod work. We need to stand up against it in everyway.
BUt, down here in Houston we are fighting agasinst "safe and clear."

But I like the tire tax idea, just like a gas tax it charges you for tires. No need to track them from state to state. Just have a small tax on it. people but tires all day, with a small, and I mean small it would help pay for our roads and should only pay for the roads.

guthmund 02-17-2005 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TM875
Here's an idea... why doesn't the government just spend its money on road crews that a) do work and b) don't screw it up. The local expressway near me took SIX YEARS to just add a shoulder and enlarge the on-ramps for just 6 miles of highway. Talk about inefficiency.

Don't punish people for driving hybrids, but don't punish people for driving inefficient cars. The government itself is the problem here, not the users of the roads.

Yeah, no kidding there, TM.

The highway dept. in the area has been working on attaching an existing highway to a newly expanded highway. The difference being about 5 miles of two lane road that would have to be expanded on both sides by adding one lane and a shoulder. It officially 'opens' next week and it only took them 3 years to do it. Of course, they're ahead of schedule like six months, so, it's a big success and the highway dept. is 'real excited.'

TheFrogel 02-17-2005 01:20 PM

Hm, I think I'm more up for a tire tax than a road tax, myself, and I'm not quite sure. Both are taxes and do a similar thing, but the tire tax is less objectionable to me. Weird. And yes, the implementation of this idea is ridiculous; there's SO MANY gas stations in the US, and so many cars...I don't even think it's feasible, it would take years or decades before it started making money. Although many new cars already come with GPS; doesn't OnStar use that?

And I also agree with the seeming incompetence of road crews and the similarities between their pace and molasses. I see all the roads in the US, and I think "all these were put up in the past 60 years, but it takes them five to complete a twenty-mile stretch?" Either they used to be more efficient or less careful, or a combination of both.

flstf 02-17-2005 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFrogel
Hm, I think I'm more up for a tire tax than a road tax, myself, and I'm not quite sure. Both are taxes and do a similar thing, but the tire tax is less objectionable to me.

Yeah, I remember when I was young and poor. I would drive on my tires until the thread was showing and then I'd rotate them to get even more out of them. At least I wouldn't have to pay this tire tax this way, LOL.

StanT 02-17-2005 08:19 PM

I prefer taxes that target usage. Generate more garbage, pay more for garbage pickup. Use more water, pay a higher water bill. Drive more, pay more for roads. The regressive nature of the tax could be diluted by an adjustment in income tax.

The GPS device seems far fetched, though. An odometer that is harder to screw with would seem to be adequate.

flstf 02-17-2005 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT
I prefer taxes that target usage. Generate more garbage, pay more for garbage pickup. Use more water, pay a higher water bill. Drive more, pay more for roads. The regressive nature of the tax could be diluted by an adjustment in income tax.

I don't know. People who don't have kids still have to pay for schools and libraries because we all benefit. Maybe we should do the same for roads and just eliminate the gas tax. Everyone benefits from interstate commerce and transportation even if they don't drive.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73