PDA

View Full Version : Economics Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax


Stinger
03-24-2011, 05:31 PM
CBO: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement
By Pete Kasperowicz - 03/24/11 04:17 PM ET

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said 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 at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

"In the past, the efficiency costs of implementing a system of VMT charges — particularly the costs of users' time for slowing and queuing at tollbooths — would clearly have outweighed the potential benefits from more efficient use of highway capacity," CBO wrote. "Now, electronic metering and billing are making per-mile charges a practical option."

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.

Conrad said in response that federal funds are tight, and in asking for recommendations on how to raise that money, he noted the possibility of a VMT tax as a way to solve the problem of collecting less in taxes as people move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"Do we do gas tax?" Conrad asked. "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to be paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?"

Conrad argued some recommendation should be made by his committee on these issues when the Senate considers a transportation spending bill later this year.

CBO's report stressed it was making no recommendations but seemed to support a VMT tax as a more accurate way of having drivers pay for the costs of highway maintenance. The report said miles driven is a larger factor in highway repairs than fuel consumption and suggested that having drivers pay for the real costs of highways "would involve imposing a combination of fuel taxes and per-mile charges."

But CBO's assessment of "costs" was broader than just those costs associated with maintaining highway systems.

"Any given driver’s highway use also imposes costs on other users, on nearby nonusers, on the environment, and on the economy in the form of congestion, risk of accidents, noise, emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants that affect local air quality, and dependence on foreign oil," CBO said.

On how to implement the idea, CBO said it is unclear how much it would cost to "install metering equipment in all of the nation's cars and trucks."

"Having the devices installed as original equipment under a mandate to vehicle manufacturers would be relatively inexpensive but could lead to a long transition; requiring vehicles to be retrofitted with the devices could be faster but much more costly, and the equipment could be more susceptible to tampering than factory-installed equipment might be," CBO said.

The report added that VMT taxes could be tracked and even collected at filling stations. "If VMT taxes were collected at the pump, each time fuel was purchased, information would be sent from a device in the vehicle to a device at the filling station," it said.

CBO also suggested different VMT tax rates might be assessed to different vehicles because heavier vehicles do more road damage, and rates might change depending on whether miles are driven at peak use times or during less congested hours.

CBO did acknowledge that privacy concerns may be a hurdle to implementing a VMT tax because electronic tracking of miles driven might provide too much personal information to the government. However, CBO noted that some have proposed restricting the information that would be transmitted to the government.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/151765-cbo-says-taxing-drivers-based-on-miles-driven-a-real-option-for-raising-revenues

Donger
03-24-2011, 05:33 PM
What an amazingly f*cking stupid idea.

KC Dan
03-24-2011, 05:34 PM
F*** NO!

Ebolapox
03-24-2011, 05:34 PM
depends on how much, I guess. it'll have have a massive negative effect on over the road trucking, which is a MAJOR part of our economy (so, I'd consider this a fucking retarded idea).

vailpass
03-24-2011, 05:45 PM
Metering equipment? ****ing METERING equipment? On our private vehicles?
Time to take the little red barchetta for a drive.

Bwana
03-24-2011, 06:06 PM
What an amazingly f*cking stupid idea.

What you said.

I spent 10 years in the car business, there are ways around it. :evil:

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 06:19 PM
Just what the transportation industry needs--- another kick in the balls.

Hey idiots who support this crap, everything in your house CAME OFF A TRUCK. The costs will be passed on to you.

That's if you can find a truck driver to deliver it after you destroy every incentive to do that.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 06:23 PM
Let me guess, federal union employees will control the monitoring of metered vehicles.

notorious
03-24-2011, 06:42 PM
This is exactly what I need expand my business.


Fucking Idiots.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 06:43 PM
I'm a little confused. Isn't a gas tax a decent enough proxy for a mileage tax without having to invade our privacy? Yeah, some cars get better or worse gas mileage, but I don't think this is an "unfairness" that should be corrected. If you drive a gas hog, you are making us import more oil from Saudi Arabia, so you pony up more, and the Prius driver ponies up less.

Aside from the privacy issue, I'd imagine people would try to cheat the system, hack the monitoring device, and how are you going to chase down someone who doesn't pay? No issue with a fuel tax, you want gas, you pay.

banyon
03-24-2011, 06:58 PM
I can't see this passing and agree it makes little sense as a revenue measure.

What about people driving on county roads, or off-road? I don't see how that becomes congress's business.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 07:36 PM
No issue with a fuel tax, you want gas, you pay. The more Hybrids are put into the system the less revenue for roads. It's not a gas hog issue anymore for upkeep on the roads.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 07:42 PM
The more Hybrids are put into the system the less revenue for roads. It's not a gas hog issue anymore for upkeep on the roads.

If the tax is too low to pay for the roads, then adjust it, I just don't think taxing by mileage is necessary. A gas tax is easier to enforce, less intrusive, and has the added bonus of punishing people who drive gas hogs.

Amnorix
03-24-2011, 07:43 PM
I'll echo others -- isn't this exactly what the gas tax works out to be, without the various Big Brother downsides?

MagicHef
03-24-2011, 07:48 PM
Also, heavier vehicles (gas hogs) cause more damage to roads than lighter (more fuel efficient) vehicles do. Adjusting the gas tax makes much more sense than introducing a new mileage tax.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 07:48 PM
By the way, for those thinking "what, you are actually talking about the possibility that an increase in the gas tax is OK? How dare you!", the problem here is the federal gas tax is a set rate of pennies per gallon, instead of a percent. So, it doesn't keep pace with inflation.

Theoretically, if our income tax rate or sales tax (at the state level) is good now, it should still be good in the future because as our income increases or the price of the stuff we buy increases with inflation, so does the tax. Thats why tax rates are usually a percent instead of a flat rate, they don't want to vote on tax increases very often if they don't have to. If the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, it should probably increase with inflation. I think they should set it at whatever it is now on a percent basis, probably 5% or whatever, then forget about it unless there's a good reason to change.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 07:48 PM
I'll echo others -- isn't this exactly what the gas tax works out to be, without the various Big Brother downsides?

So someone driving a Volt shouldn't have to pay for maintaining roads?

alnorth
03-24-2011, 07:52 PM
So someone driving a Volt shouldn't have to pay for maintaining roads?

They use less fuel and force us to rely less on foreign oil. So, they provide an intangible benefit that is appropriately recognized by our current scheme.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 07:59 PM
They use less fuel and force us to rely less on foreign oil. So, they provide an intangible benefit that is appropriately recognized by our current scheme.So when we're all driving Volt's who replaces interstate systems that cost $1million per mile?

chopper
03-24-2011, 08:03 PM
I'll echo others -- isn't this exactly what the gas tax works out to be, without the various Big Brother downsides?

Gas tax is per gallon, so higher MPG vehicles pay less tax. As we shift to vehicles that get better mileage, the revenue goes down, while the need for road maintenance stays the same or increases as more and more cars hit the roads every year.

As far as trucking goes, a mileage tax of 5 to 6 cents/mile will equal what they currently pay, so just remember when they bitch about it, as long as the rate is around there, they have no reason to complain. Plus it will make it easier to get off highway credits for them, and if there is a GPS unit, it will drastically cut down on their reporting and filing costs. I see this as a win for trucking if the rate is in the 5-6 cents per mile range, anything more than that and yes they are getting screwed and have reason to complain.

They have to do something, increase the tax or switch to the mileage option or they're going to run out of money. The big brother factor sucks but so does raising taxes (which may not even work if we go all electric eventually).

alnorth
03-24-2011, 08:05 PM
So when we're all driving Volt's who replaces interstate systems that cost $1million per mile?

At that point, we all do, via an increased gas tax.

Seriously, this isn't complicated. A mileage tax will never, ever fly, and its not necessary because a gas tax is a good proxy for mileage. If a large portion of driver drive gas guzzlers (as they do), then they should be punished for it. If we all drive fuel-efficient vehicles, then hallelujah, we got rid of the gas guzzlers. Now we all share the burden with a hike in the gas tax.

chopper
03-24-2011, 08:06 PM
At that point, we all do, via an increased gas tax.

Seriously, this isn't complicated. A mileage tax will never, ever fly, and its not necessary because a gas tax is a good proxy for mileage. If a large portion of driver drive gas guzzlers (as they do), then they should be punished for it. If we all drive fuel-efficient vehicles, then hallelujah, we got rid of the gas guzzlers. Now we all share the burden with a hike in the gas tax.

volt = electric right?

alnorth
03-24-2011, 08:08 PM
They have to do something, increase the tax or switch to the mileage option or they're going to run out of money. The big brother factor sucks but so does raising taxes (which may not even work if we go all electric eventually).

Simple. Increase the tax, or if that is some political impossibility, then make our tax calculate on a percentage basis like sales tax.

Some people are acting as if we are forever doomed to an 18.4 cent per gallon federal fuel tax forever and ever until the end of time. It would be enormously easier to adjust or increase the fuel tax than to install some kind of idiotic mileage big-brother box, then chase after everyone to make sure they pay.

Seriously, the idea in the OP story is so stupid its hard to decide where to begin on why this wont work.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 08:10 PM
volt = electric right?

There are no exclusively electric cars out there, even the volt uses a gas tank when all else fails.

edit: theoretically speaking, lets pretend that generations from now, all-electric vehicles become common. At that point, we remove the fuel tax and start surcharging your electric bill to pay for the roads.

It will NEVER be practical to track mileage, that is just a retarded idea.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 08:12 PM
Gas tax is per gallon, so higher MPG vehicles pay less tax. As we shift to vehicles that get better mileage, the revenue goes down, while the need for road maintenance stays the same or increases as more and more cars hit the roads every year.

As far as trucking goes, a mileage tax of 5 to 6 cents/mile will equal what they currently pay, so just remember when they bitch about it, as long as the rate is around there, they have no reason to complain. Plus it will make it easier to get off highway credits for them, and if there is a GPS unit, it will drastically cut down on their reporting and filing costs. I see this as a win for trucking if the rate is in the 5-6 cents per mile range, anything more than that and yes they are getting screwed and have reason to complain.

They have to do something, increase the tax or switch to the mileage option or they're going to run out of money. The big brother factor sucks but so does raising taxes (which may not even work if we go all electric eventually).chopper gets it.

banyon
03-24-2011, 08:14 PM
So when we're all driving Volt's who replaces interstate systems that cost $1million per mile?

Pay for it per battery, or at the "spigot", that is where the car is charged, further giving an efficiency incentive.

(edit: see al already beat me to the punch on this one).

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 08:14 PM
There are no exclusively electric cars out there, even the volt uses a gas tank when all else fails.

edit: theoretically speaking, lets pretend that generations from now, all-electric vehicles become common. At that point, we remove the fuel tax and start surcharging your electric bill to pay for the roads.

It will NEVER be practical to track mileage, that is just a retarded idea.Whew....ok, you get it too. I'm just trying to point out that those that drive electric cars shouldn't avoid the wear and tear charges they put on the roads. :thumb:

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 08:16 PM
Pay for it per battery, or at the "spigot", that is where the car is charged, further giving an efficiency incentive.

Dinasour driving car guy here....what's a spigot?

durtyrute
03-24-2011, 08:20 PM
I can't see this passing and agree it makes little sense as a revenue measure.

What about people driving on county roads, or off-road? I don't see how that becomes congress's business.

If they want it to pass, it will pass. Do you really think they give a fuck about us?

banyon
03-24-2011, 08:20 PM
ROFLDinasour driving car guy here....what's a spigot?

Just a plumbing metaphor for the outlet.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 08:22 PM
Whew....ok, you get it too. I'm just trying to point out that those that drive electric cars shouldn't avoid the wear and tear charges they put on the roads. :thumb:

yep. FOR NOW, I am fine with giving the electric cars an indirect tax break because they are a tiny minority and their few cars are helping us get off our dependance on foreign oil.

Many, many years from now in some utopian future when everyone is driving electric (maybe with flying cars!), then they no longer deserve this tax break. Their grandfather did when gas-guzzling SUV's were common, but if everyone in the year 2080 is driving futuristic cars that drive like a sports car for 250 miles on only a 6 hour charge, then gasoline is probably hideously expensive due to how few cars can use it, so there's no need for a tax there. The "fuel" would now be electricity, and that "fuel" should be taxed for upkeep of the road.

chopper
03-24-2011, 08:25 PM
There are no exclusively electric cars out there, even the volt uses a gas tank when all else fails.

edit: theoretically speaking, lets pretend that generations from now, all-electric vehicles become common. At that point, we remove the fuel tax and start surcharging your electric bill to pay for the roads.

It will NEVER be practical to track mileage, that is just a retarded idea.

I would only buy a volt if I could use it for my daily commute, within the electric range, and effectively never buy gas again (I can't do that but you can see how that would affect the gas tax revenue).

By the time we get to all electric vehicles the road fund will be bone dry because of the incremental increases in mpg. Something has to be done soon. OR already implemented a mileage tax pilot program a while back. I haven't heard how it is doing, I'm sure the Feds are watching it.

I totally agree it is impractical TODAY, but never is a long time. If they can perfect it, it is about the only fair way to do this. I realize it removes a certain incentive for high MPG vehicles, but $3.50/gallon gives incentive to strive for high MPG's.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 08:35 PM
ROFL

Just a plumbing metaphor for the outlet.

Laugh it up buddy boy. I'm going to move in next door and when you're on vacation trench into an outside outlet on your house so I can charge up the volt.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 08:38 PM
I would only buy a volt if I could use it for my daily commute, within the electric range, and effectively never buy gas again (I can't do that but you can see how that would affect the gas tax revenue).

By the time we get to all electric vehicles the road fund will be bone dry because of the incremental increases in mpg. Something has to be done soon. OR already implemented a mileage tax pilot program a while back. I haven't heard how it is doing, I'm sure the Feds are watching it.

I totally agree it is impractical TODAY, but never is a long time. If they can perfect it, it is about the only fair way to do this. I realize it removes a certain incentive for high MPG vehicles, but $3.50/gallon gives incentive to strive for high MPG's.

You are being silly. There is nothing magical about 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax. If it should be raised, then raise it. If raising the tax is politically impossible then convert our current flat rate to a percentage.

Don't even bother thinking much about a mileage tax, that is, permanently, a political impossibility, period, end of discussion. It would be easier to raise the gas tax, so don't even bother talking about a mileage tax. If the gas tax needs to go up or be pegged as a percent of price, focus on that, because asking people to install a black box to monitor mileage is completely stupid and wont be put up with.

banyon
03-24-2011, 08:50 PM
Laugh it up buddy boy. I'm going to move in next door and when you're on vacation trench into an outside outlet on your house so I can charge up the volt.

Actually, I didn't even mean to have a smiley in that post. My cell phone "autocorrected" that in somehow.

But nice comeback anyway. ;)

banyon
03-24-2011, 08:52 PM
If they want it to pass, it will pass. Do you really think they give a **** about us?

I don't think 'they" are a monolithic entity that agrees on everything, so, no, I don't think it will pass.

chopper
03-24-2011, 09:13 PM
You are being silly. There is nothing magical about 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax. If it should be raised, then raise it. If raising the tax is politically impossible then convert our current flat rate to a percentage.

Don't even bother thinking much about a mileage tax, that is, permanently, a political impossibility, period, end of discussion. It would be easier to raise the gas tax, so don't even bother talking about a mileage tax. If the gas tax needs to go up or be pegged as a percent of price, focus on that, because asking people to install a black box to monitor mileage is completely stupid and wont be put up with.

I'll stand for a lot of things, but being called silly is not one of them. I will reply one last time and give you the opportunity to have the last word.:p

Our opinions on the efficiency of the black box, or our government's competence to run this program will have no effect on their decisions. Nothing they do is done well so just add this to the list. Trucking will absolutely go apeshit (for good reason) if they try to even raise the diesel tax 1 cent. They have the lobbyists to ensure that never happens. Going based on price will make it too difficult to budget anything. All I'm saying is the situation is dire right now, not 80 years from now when we might be off oil. I see this getting passed before either of the other 2 options, respectfully.

alnorth
03-24-2011, 09:49 PM
I'll stand for a lot of things, but being called silly is not one of them. I will reply one last time and give you the opportunity to have the last word.:p

Our opinions on the efficiency of the black box, or our government's competence to run this program will have no effect on their decisions. Nothing they do is done well so just add this to the list. Trucking will absolutely go apeshit (for good reason) if they try to even raise the diesel tax 1 cent. They have the lobbyists to ensure that never happens. Going based on price will make it too difficult to budget anything. All I'm saying is the situation is dire right now, not 80 years from now when we might be off oil. I see this getting passed before either of the other 2 options, respectfully.

Rather than "have the last word", I'll let this stand on its own, with no big reply needed. I'll just add that "raise deisel one cent" means nothing if its 30 years from now, vs now. Why? inflation, obviously.

There's nothing magical about our current flat rate. Over time that rate will be a smaller and smaller percentage of price, unless we peg it as a percentage. Every year that goes by WITHOUT an increase in the deisel tax is effectively a pay increase for truckers. So to say we cant touch the tax ever is silly.

Baby Lee
03-24-2011, 10:05 PM
It would be enormously easier to adjust or increase the fuel tax than to install some kind of idiotic mileage big-brother box, then chase after everyone to make sure they pay.
My greater concern is cutouts and graft leading to swaths of transportation avoiding what law-abiding citizens pay, you know like S-Corps and tax shelters. And we can come back here a decade later and wonder how in God's name the rich keep getting richer.

durtyrute
03-25-2011, 09:51 AM
I don't think 'they" are a monolithic entity that agrees on everything, so, no, I don't think it will pass.

The majority of them are

Bob Dole
03-25-2011, 10:12 AM
How about looking at reducing all the waste that's involved in road maintenance and construction before dipping into our pockets AGAIN.

ClevelandBronco
03-25-2011, 10:19 AM
How about looking at reducing all the waste that's involved in road maintenance and construction before dipping into our pockets AGAIN.

Dude. I think your name is infected.

Simplex3
03-25-2011, 10:42 AM
Also, heavier vehicles (gas hogs) cause more damage to roads than lighter (more fuel efficient) vehicles do. Adjusting the gas tax makes much more sense than introducing a new mileage tax.

Not if your goal is gaining more political power.

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2011, 10:43 AM
They already TAKE TAXES for roads. They, our representative governemnt, chooses not to spend it on roads

notorious
03-25-2011, 11:54 AM
How about looking at reducing all the waste that's involved in road maintenance and construction before dipping into our pockets AGAIN.


That makes way to much sense.

We shall call it the "One man working while 5 others watch" initiative.

It will never happen, though.

The politicians need to tax us more so that they can divert the money away from what it intended for into their own states and pet projects so that they can get re-elected.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 11:59 AM
We've already got a tax that taxes us based on how much we use our vehicles, the gasoline tax. There definitely shouldn't be two different types of these taxes just so they can squeeze more revenue out of us. And as between the two, it seems like the gasoline tax favors people who want the country to move more toward energy efficiency whereas the miles driven tax would favor those who like large luxury vehicles.

notorious
03-25-2011, 12:03 PM
We've already got a tax that taxes us based on how much we use our vehicles, the gasoline tax. There definitely shouldn't be two different types of these taxes just so they can squeeze more revenue out of us. And as between the two, it seems like the gasoline tax favors people who want the country to move more toward energy efficiency whereas the miles driven tax would favor those who like large luxury vehicles.

Besides, people have missed the fact that heavier vehicles that do more damage to the roads use more fuel hence they are already being taxed more.

chopper
03-25-2011, 12:10 PM
We've already got a tax that taxes us based on how much we use our vehicles, the gasoline tax. There definitely shouldn't be two different types of these taxes just so they can squeeze more revenue out of us. And as between the two, it seems like the gasoline tax favors people who want the country to move more toward energy efficiency whereas the miles driven tax would favor those who like large luxury vehicles.

I am under the impression the VMT tax will replace the gas tax. We can still punish the suv drivers by making their rate per mile higher can't we? I think people are over estimating the role of the gas tax in people's decisions to buy high MPG vehicles. They buy them because gas is $3.50/gallon, not to pay less fuel tax. Besides the fuel tax isn't really an incentive tax anyway, its nothing but a revenue generating tax for upkeep of the roads.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
03-25-2011, 12:27 PM
I am under the impression the VMT tax will replace the gas tax. We can still punish the suv drivers by making their rate per mile higher can't we? I think people are over estimating the role of the gas tax in people's decisions to buy high MPG vehicles. They buy them because gas is $3.50/gallon, not to pay less fuel tax. Besides the fuel tax isn't really an incentive tax anyway, its nothing but a revenue generating tax for upkeep of the roads.
Posted via Mobile Device

Gas is $3.50 a gallon because of the gas tax. All taxes are incentives whether intended to be or not.

I can't think of a single good reason to switch from the gas tax to the VMT.

teedubya
03-25-2011, 11:12 PM
In the future, all highways will most likely be toll-roads. A lot of big interstates in broke states are selling the "rights" to highways, and creating toll roads.

So, they will tax us at the pump... tax our miles... tax us to drive on their roads.

This is freedom, Amurka.

http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/highways/pdf/59a.pdf

stevieray
03-25-2011, 11:30 PM
In the future, all highways will most likely be toll-roads. A lot of big interstates in broke states are selling the "rights" to highways, and creating toll roads.

So, they will tax us at the pump... tax our miles... tax us to drive on their roads.

This is freedom, Amurka.

http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/highways/pdf/59a.pdf

pffft, you don't ever stop paying for your car. no pay property taxes, no drivey.

My Van gets around 12-15 miles to the gallon. One of the reasons I want to drive it is because I'm pretty sure someday it won't be allowed on the road....


sad, really.

mikey23545
03-25-2011, 11:33 PM
In the future, all highways will most likely be toll-roads. A lot of big interstates in broke states are selling the "rights" to highways, and creating toll roads.

So, they will tax us at the pump... tax our miles... tax us to drive on their roads.

This is freedom, Amurka.

http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/highways/pdf/59a.pdf

This is what democracy looks like!

prhom
03-26-2011, 08:23 AM
Besides, people have missed the fact that heavier vehicles that do more damage to the roads use more fuel hence they are already being taxed more.

Bingo! Also, as gas prices rise people drive less miles. This means less wear and tear on the roads and less maintenance costs. So even keeping a flat $/gallon tax on gas isn't as bad as it seems.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2011, 08:42 AM
Highway maintenance is a in the red all they time. Its one instance where we should charge for damage...speeds increased and weights increased to satisfy the trucking industry and they don't even come close to paying their fair share for damage.

The lobby is super strong and they get away with it plus the PR they put out when the issue is raised scares people more than taking away SS and starving the elderly.

prhom
03-26-2011, 08:43 AM
In the future, all highways will most likely be toll-roads. A lot of big interstates in broke states are selling the "rights" to highways, and creating toll roads.

So, they will tax us at the pump... tax our miles... tax us to drive on their roads.

This is freedom, Amurka.

http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/highways/pdf/59a.pdf

I think I'd be okay with that as long as it meant a reduction of (or in lieu of raising) income taxes paid to the feds. Unfortunately, once a new way of taxing is found the old way never goes away, the funds just get reallocated.

DJJasonp
03-26-2011, 10:20 AM
In 2011, the average 'tax' per gallon is around 48 cents. That's 12% if gas is $4.00 a gallon (which it is that or higher in so-cal).

They propose this sh*t, but in most cities in america, public transit is crap or non-existent at best.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-26-2011, 10:55 AM
One of the dumbest ideas i've ever seen proposed and i've seen a few.

alnorth
03-26-2011, 11:00 AM
They propose this sh*t, but in most cities in america, public transit is crap or non-existent at best.

Its crap or non-existent because if you aren't in an incredibly congested mega-city like new york, no one wants to use public transportation. Almost every bus and rail line in the US is subsidized and sparsely used, and no one wants to carpool. If you build a carpool lane all you'll have is an empty lane no one uses, except to try to cheat if they think they wont be caught.

LA is a hilarious example of what not to do. A generation or so ago they deliberately decided to stop building more roads, focusing instead on public transportation and carpool lanes. Thinking if they did that, they will force people to live closer to the city and stop using their cars. Instead they now have some of the most incredible traffic in the world.

Stinger
04-20-2011, 07:47 AM
Back in the news today ...........


GOLDEN VALLEY, Minn. -- The Minnesota Department of Transportation is looking for 500 people to test technology that could someday be used to collect a mileage-based user fee.

Mn/DOT anticipates a fee on road usage might someday be necessary as more fuel efficient and hybrid cars are on the road, decreasing revenue from the gas tax.

"This research will provide important feedback from motorists about the effectiveness of using technology in a car or truck to gather mileage information," said Cory Johnson, project manager.

"We are researching alternative financing methods today that could be used 10 or 20 years from now when the number of fuel efficient and hybrid cars increase and no longer produce enough revenue from a gas tax to build and repair roads."

Recruiting for the Minnesota Road Fee Test will begin in May, with research starting in July. Volunteers must be from Hennepin or Wright County. Drivers will be given smart phones with a GPS application that has been programmed to allow them to submit information. Volunteers will get a small stipend for expenses associated with the test.

The research is scheduled to end by December 2012.

The state of Oregon completed a similar study in November 2007. Iowa, Nevada and Texas are currently researching mileage-based user fees.

Mn/DOT says that if a mileage-based user fee were implemented, motorists would pay a fee based on how many miles they driver, rather than how much gas a vehicle uses, which is how Minnesota's gas tax is currently designed.

The Minnesota Legislature appropriated $5 million from the trunk highway fund for the demonstration in 2007.

(Copyright 2011 by KARE. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/919754/396/MnDOT-to-test-drivers-mileage-tax

mlyonsd
04-20-2011, 08:13 AM
Here's a thought. Maybe the state DOT's could start using the billions handed to them every year more wisely.

In South Dakota they spent 2 years replacing 10 miles of north and southbound lanes of I-29. Fine, I get that. Rebuild infrastructure yada yada.

The last two weeks though they've been going up down both sides of that new interstate putting up new signs. Signs that say exactly what the old ones did. And not just the sign part, the steel frame posts and concrete.

So you're going down the interstate and you see a sign that says Vermillion 1 Mile. Behind it by about 20 feet is another sign that says the exact same thing. I'm talking all the signs in that stretch. I mean if they hadn't left the old ones up for a week one would not even know they were replaced.

New signs? JFC.

/rant

Chief Henry
04-20-2011, 10:51 AM
Its not our money to keep...its the gov't money before we use it.

thats been obvious for along time.

go bowe
04-20-2011, 03:27 PM
Here's a thought. Maybe the state DOT's could start using the billions handed to them every year more wisely.

In South Dakota they spent 2 years replacing 10 miles of north and southbound lanes of I-29. Fine, I get that. Rebuild infrastructure yada yada.

The last two weeks though they've been going up down both sides of that new interstate putting up new signs. Signs that say exactly what the old ones did. And not just the sign part, the steel frame posts and concrete.

So you're going down the interstate and you see a sign that says Vermillion 1 Mile. Behind it by about 20 feet is another sign that says the exact same thing. I'm talking all the signs in that stretch. I mean if they hadn't left the old ones up for a week one would not even know they were replaced.

New signs? JFC.

/rant

hey now, gotta keep those sign guys busy doing something...

mlyonsd
04-20-2011, 04:36 PM
hey now, gotta keep those sign guys busy doing something...

It's insane. When they were both up at the same time you seriously could not tell which was the old and which was the new.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 07:20 PM
We are already taxed on travel.

Stinger
05-05-2011, 07:23 AM
Getting closer.......

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's "Transportation Opportunities Act," an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

This follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs, and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $200 million through FY 2017 for the project.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

ROYC75
05-05-2011, 07:49 AM
What are they going to do about the trucks, who already pay a Road & Fuel Taxes fee quarterly ?

Add on more or leave them alone ? To add more taxes means higher transportation coast which raises market retail which means you, the consumer is paying for it as well ( of which you already are, but more ? ).

KC Dan
05-05-2011, 09:41 AM
Getting closer.......

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile

DOA in the House, thank God!

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2011, 09:52 AM
DOA in the House, thank God!

Ditto on this, dumbest idea possibly ever.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2011, 10:33 AM
He we have to pay for more invasions and wars plus entitlements!

donkhater
05-05-2011, 11:14 AM
"Transportation Opportunities Act"

Say what you want about Rand's philosophy, but this kind of crap is so eerily similar to "Atlas Shrugged" it's spooky.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2011, 11:38 AM
"Transportation Opportunities Act"

Say what you want about Rand's philosophy, but this kind of crap is so eerily similar to "Atlas Shrugged" it's spooky.

The nerve of them calling it "opportunities". Oh wait! This is meant for Obama and the kind of govt he wants it would be. Newspeak....just like Clinton calling taxes "contributions."


Glad to see divided govt working with this dead in the House. :thumb:

Saulbadguy
05-05-2011, 11:43 AM
Besides, people have missed the fact that heavier vehicles that do more damage to the roads use more fuel hence they are already being taxed more.

If heavier vehicles weren't used, the majority of the roads in this country would require very little maintenance compared to what they do now.

Bewbies
05-05-2011, 12:15 PM
New taxes to pay for the things the govt is supposed to do, old taxes to pay for stuff they're not supposed to be doing.

ChiefsCountry
05-05-2011, 12:20 PM
Another way they are looking to screw over the Red states, where driving is way more common.

HonestChieffan
05-05-2011, 01:26 PM
What are they going to do about the trucks, who already pay a Road & Fuel Taxes fee quarterly ?

Add on more or leave them alone ? To add more taxes means higher transportation coast which raises market retail which means you, the consumer is paying for it as well ( of which you already are, but more ? ).


add more, a lot more

ROYC75
05-05-2011, 02:01 PM
If heavier vehicles weren't used, the majority of the roads in this country would require very little maintenance compared to what they do now.

This is true,we can always use pick up trucks!

OTOH, lighter trucks mean less cargo carried to the warehouses & distribution centers.

Which means higher prices at the cash register on the food and merchandise you buy.

Which means the cost of living goes up and they possibly want to tax the trucks more ? :shake:

People better get ready for their cost of living to skyrocket by the end of the summer and it's only going to get worst, so save now why you have the chance.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:04 PM
This is true,we can always use pick up trucks!

OTO, lighter trucks mean less cargo carried to the warehouses & distribution centers.

Which means higher prices at the cash register on the food and merchandise you buy.

Which means the cost of living goes up and they possibly want to tax the trucks more ? :shake:

People better get ready for their cost of living to skyrocket by the end of the summer and it's only going to get worst, so save now why you have the chance.

All we have to do to fix that is install price controls.

ROYC75
05-05-2011, 02:12 PM
All we have to do to fix that is install price controls.

Why can't we do that to keep the truckers profitable ? Pass the higher bucks along to the consumer ? But everybody wants their material / products hauled to them as cheap as possible.

Passing higher taxes on truckers is wrong. If they pass it on truckers & cars too, we all pay double taxes by way of the tax and the increase prices of merchandise & food.

Regulate it all you want, the transportation industry was regulated at one time, people bitched because it wasn't a free market.

HonestChieffan
05-05-2011, 02:16 PM
Trucks do the damage, let them pay the bill. The only reason they dont is the teamsters union power that has protected them for years from paying more as the weights became extreme.

patteeu
05-05-2011, 02:17 PM
Why can't we do that to keep the truckers profitable ? Pass the higher bucks along to the consumer ? But everybody wants their material / products hauled to them as cheap as possible.

Passing higher taxes on truckers is wrong. If they pass it on truckers & cars too, we all pay double taxes by way of the tax and the increase prices of merchandise & food.

Regulate it all you want, the transportation industry was regulated at one time, people bitched because it was a free market.

Truckers are a small group of voters. Consumers who buy goods that are trucked to stores are a big group of voters. The price controls need to be on the truckers to keep the store prices down for the voters.

It's brilliant really. Increase taxes on the truckers to raise revenue, but ban them from raising their prices so it won't hurt real people.

Calcountry
05-05-2011, 02:20 PM
Hi, this is Govstar, you are on the way to the polls and you are a registered Republican, time to turn your car off.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-05-2011, 11:12 PM
Big Brother Gov't Seeks to Tax and Track All Drivers
Dees Illustration
Eric Blair
Activist Post

"Oh, say can you see...the land of the fee, and home of the slave?" Americans really better wake up before it's too late. Perhaps it already is.

Today Pete Kasperowicz of The Hill reported that the Obama administration, following a March Congressional Budget Office report, has "floated" the idea of taxing drivers per mile. Kasperowicz writes:

The plan is a part of the administration’s 'Transportation Opportunities Act,' an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

...Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations. (my emphasis)

If this doesn't alert you to the direction of America, I don't know what will. The government wants to tax Americans for simply leaving their homes, and track their cars via mandatory GPS chips.

According to the bill, a new sub-agency, the Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office, will be funded to the tune of $300 million to "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."


The White House claims they did not create or support the measure because "This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not take into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

But, why would they need a GPS tracking device to accomplish this goal? Couldn't they simply raise gas taxes? After all, it's a consumption-based tax that supposedly goes into road maintenance.

This is a classic case of introducing draconian legislation to float the most extreme path in order get half of what they really expected to get. They know there will be a loud uproar over mandates for GPS mileage trackers in every car. Yet, they'll make the argument that it's needed because of our crumbling infrastructure, crippling debt, or to help reduce global warming. Meanwhile, they'll bloat the government even more with this new well-funded agency to prepare the "public awareness communications plan" -- aka propaganda. When it's all over, they'll leave the tracking to LoJack and your smart phone to relieve the anxiety about Big Brother intrusions and simply raise the gas taxes nationally. And once again, citizens will be fleeced by the government but they'll somehow be content with the compromise.

This is a new proposal at the Federal level, but has been proposed in a handful of states aimed at raising revenues. An active program in Oregon is for electric vehicles which are obviously exempt from paying gas taxes at the pump. But the proposal for Massachusetts and the nation is reportedly for all cars.

Below is a recent segment on Fox News to have a mock debate about it. The host apparently got the propaganda talking points already as he subtly sells the idea throughout the segment. While Senator Scott Brown was right to call it Orwellian, he's just playing his role, too. Get ready to accept more slavery.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdGmQh5Bqok?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdGmQh5Bqok?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/big-brother-govt-seeks-to-tax-and-track.html

FishingRod
05-06-2011, 11:31 AM
Why can't we do that to keep the truckers profitable ? Pass the higher bucks along to the consumer ? But everybody wants their material / products hauled to them as cheap as possible.

Passing higher taxes on truckers is wrong. If they pass it on truckers & cars too, we all pay double taxes by way of the tax and the increase prices of merchandise & food.

Regulate it all you want, the transportation industry was regulated at one time, people bitched because it was a free market.

Over the last 6 months the tables have turned and the carriers are absolutely reaming the crap out of people right now. Sadly many of the little guys went bankrupt over the last few years when the rates were too low. Their absence reduces the competition for freight which along with the doubling of fuel prices in the last 2 years has greatly exacerbated the problem. Passing more taxes on them will only be passed along to the rest of the public in that virtually everything is dependant in one way or another on the trucking industry.

ROYC75
05-06-2011, 11:40 AM
Truckers are a small group of voters. Consumers who buy goods that are trucked to stores are a big group of voters. The price controls need to be on the truckers to keep the store prices down for the voters.

It's brilliant really. Increase taxes on the truckers to raise revenue, but ban them from raising their prices so it won't hurt real people.

Will never work!

ROYC75
05-06-2011, 11:47 AM
Over the last 6 months the tables have turned and the carriers are absolutely reaming the crap out of people right now. Sadly many of the little guys went bankrupt over the last few years when the rates were too low. Their absence reduces the competition for freight which along with the doubling of fuel prices in the last 2 years has greatly exacerbated the problem. Passing more taxes on them will only be passed along to the rest of the public in that virtually everything is dependant in one way or another on the trucking industry.

Actually, the industry has really only exploded in the last 4 months. The raising of fuel prices is only minimal of the expenses compared to supply and demand right now.

You are correct to the shortage of drivers, thus the supply and demand. The sad part is the big economical boom in the trucking field is just now getting ready to hit full swing. Meaning, rates will only go higher and come down in the winter.

Even if fuel was to come down drastically now ( which it will not ) , there will be people who think the truckers are gouging them , when it's supply and demand. When the demand of products swing the other way, rates will fall.

FTR, it's projected that their will be a shortage of drivers for the next 3 years.

Chocolate Hog
05-06-2011, 12:56 PM
Worst.President.Ever

BigChiefFan
05-06-2011, 10:10 PM
The truckers already pay higher tolls and their gas prices have gone up, too. Now this hair-brained plan is to tax them even more? We, the taxpayers have paid in full. Time for the government to tighten their purse strings. Greedy fucks. Protect my right, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the rest of it is a money grab.

morphius
05-06-2011, 10:40 PM
We can't come up with a better idea for taxing people then charging people to put a monitoring tool in their car that will force them to pay more taxes? Pathetic.

RNR
05-07-2011, 08:40 AM
All the tax them damn truckers talk amazes me. I have known several truckers in my life and none of them are what I consider overpaid. If they drop it on the companies they drive for and allow no method to pass the cost to consumers they will just screw over the truckers. Not all truckers are union a very large group of them are not. These pigfuckers in DC have us thinking "as long as it ain't me"

I understand the argument about tightening wages on government jobs that rely on our tax money. But this is bullshit. How about the traveling salesman, the lawn/landscape people and on and on. Our government is a total embarrassment. This president/administration is the worst in our history but don't worry at the growth rate of corruption and incompetence with in our government another one will come along and surpass these shitbags~