Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg A House committee chairman said Tuesday that he wants Congress to enact a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801961.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/traffic.jpgJoan Lowy - The Washington Post (http:///www.washingtonpost.com) - April 28, 2009

Not sure how this will be received by the public. --Ed.

WASHINGTON -- A House committee chairman said Tuesday that he wants Congress to enact a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks to pay for highway programs now rather than wait years to test the idea.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.

"Why do we need a pilot program? Why don't we just phase it in?" said Oberstar, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill to fund highway and transit programs that is expected to total around a half trillion dollars.

A congressionally mandated commission on transportation financing alternatives recommended switching to a vehicle-miles traveled tax, but estimated it would take a decade to put a national system in place.

"I think it can be done in far less than that, maybe two years," Oberstar said at a House hearing. He was responding to testimony by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who recommended that the transportation bill include pilot programs in every state to test the viability of a mileage-based tax.

Blumenauer said public acceptance, not technology, is the main obstacle to a mileage-based tax.

Pilot programs "would be able to increase public awareness and comfort and it would hasten the day we could make the transition," Blumenauer said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801961.html

I just can't put into words how much this idea disgusts me.



At least not on a family site like this.

Only way I would even think about supporting this would be IF they would remove the tax on gasoline. Then the problem arises with commerce. That additional tax will just be passed on to the consumer so you end up getting double taxed. If they keep the gasoline tax in place you would really be getting triple taxed. :(

Just an example with fake numbers:

Prius cost per mile before tax: $0.10

After tax: $0.15, or a 50% increase in cost

Hummer cost per mile before tax: $0.50

After tax: $0.55, just a 10% increase in cost.

Sound right to you? It doesn't to me.

The problem is that I DON'T want the government putting a GPS in my car to record where and when I drive. It's none of their freakin' business. If they want to raise a tax, raise an existing tax.

Senator Inhofe cannot be the idiot *every time*. Now we have a pretender to the throne.

Way to push green thinking by the way side. My electric car will be taxed based on how many miles I drive. I guess I'll stick with my gasoline and roll the dommy every year.

The problem is GASOLINE CONSUMPTION, tax HEAVY USERS OF THE PRODUCT!! :mad:

The short quick solution is grow the cajones to raise the federal gas tax, not some gps device for every vehicle on the road.

How many million vehicles exist in the US, registered and unregistered?

Oberstar sounds like a real tool.:rolleyes:

The problem is that I DON'T want the government putting a GPS in my car to record where and when I drive. It's none of their freakin' business. If they want to raise a tax, raise an existing tax.

The other places I have heard of taxing mileage they check your odo when you get your plates. So no GPS.

I am not taking sides on this issue as I don't know enough to make a decision.

I think you guys are missing the point here. Most people in our government appear to be tasked with finding the most expensive solutions to everything... even problems that don't exist. :p

Sorry. I'm not normally this cynical. :o

So no GPS.

Article says yes GPS.

If they need more money, they need to raise the existing gas tax. If they can't give valid enough reasons for that, they should stop and think.

I think you guys are missing the point here. Most people in our government appear to be tasked with finding the most expensive solutions to everything... even problems that don't exist. :p

Sorry. I'm not normally this cynical. :o

You aren't being cynical. You are being accurate

Oberstar overall does ok in transportation, and is one of two or three reps that have done good things to encourage cycling--and rides himself--but this tax makes no sense to me and apparently nobody else. Hike the gas tax and be done with it. At least Obama did came out against this a couple of months ago when I think it was Lahood that talked about it, so I don't see it being fast-tracked.

I think you guys are missing the point here. Most people in our government appear to be tasked with finding the most expensive solutions to everything... even problems that don't exist. :p

Sorry. I'm not normally this cynical. :oGot to agree - textbook example of inefficiency and private intrusion

I don't like it either, i will gladly unplug any GPS installed in "MY" car or disconnect the VSS. :D:flag:

Do we need California to lead again in suing the feds to hike the gas tax?

Hike the gas tax now, let people in heavier vehicles who put more stress on our roads pay more in fuel tax to keep them up.

Hmm, 3400 lb Buick vs. 6000 lb Suburban vs. 80,000 lb 18-wheeler. Who does more road damage?

The other places I have heard of taxing mileage they check your odo when you get your plates. So no GPS. ...

Plates are a state matter. States lack jurisdiction to collect taxes outside their borders, so the odometer check is out, forcing a GPS-type solution. If the mileage tax was federal, collected by the states but immediately passed on the feds, it might be legal. I don't know if the feds could legally collect taxes on miles traveled in Canada and Mexico, or could record mileages at the border.

The big rigs do the most road damage, but pound-per-pound, they get great mpg.

The target is large personal vehicles.

The short quick solution is grow the cajones to raise the federal gas tax.....


Oops, silly idea, that's already been eliminated as an option.


Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes to make up for the funding shortfall.

Darn, seemed like a good idea.:confused:

Way to push green thinking by the way side. My electric car will be taxed based on how many miles I drive. I guess I'll stick with my gasoline and roll the dommy every year.

The problem is GASOLINE CONSUMPTION, tax HEAVY USERS OF THE PRODUCT!! :mad:

"The problem" is a matter of perspective. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is not the arm of government that would normally be concerned about greenhouse gases, global warming, peak oil, the national security implications of buying much of our oil from countries that don't like us, or any broad-picture national strategies. It is more narrowly concerned about funding transportation, especially roads for traditional cars and trucks.

We have to help drive the broader picture, whether this committee likes it or not.

Just an example with fake numbers:

Prius cost per mile before tax: $0.10

After tax: $0.15, or a 50% increase in cost

Hummer cost per mile before tax: $0.50

After tax: $0.55, just a 10% increase in cost.

Sound right to you? It doesn't to me.

Of course, Taliesin. It is quite clear to anyone casually following our energy disaster that the answer is NOT :eyebrow: to increase the cost of gasoline by taxing based on miles driven. It is just another idea (probably thought up by one or more of the "big 1/.0003 brain trust) to tax FSP's (fuel sucking pigs) and high MPG cars the same. Now, why do you think they would want to do that??

As an observer of American driving habits I have concluded VERY few of us realize why we should be reducing our consumption of oil.

1. Now that gas prices are down no one is slowing down any more. A car in front of you is a jerk to be passed.

2. High MPG car drivers are no exception, quite the contrary. Many drive like Sterling Moss just to prove to all that just because they are driving an energy efficient car doesn't mean they can't speed and drive aggressively with the best of them.

3. Hot Rodding and driving aggressively is totally ingrained into our psyche. It is going to take decades to get us to actually acknowledge the problems this country faces.

But here is a positive note. Our president traded in his Chrysler 300 C for a Ford Hybrid!!

GOOD FOR HIM! Makes me proud I voted for him. At least HE understands and that IS a good beginning. :flag::flag::flag::xena_banana:

...one of two or three reps that have done good things to encourage cycling--and rides himself--but this tax makes no sense to me and apparently nobody else...

I know. Expand it to include bicycles and see how he likes it.

It's a vehicle isn't it?

"The problem" is a matter of perspective. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is not the arm of government that would normally be concerned about greenhouse gases, global warming, peak oil, the national security implications of buying much of our oil from countries that don't like us, or any broad-picture national strategies. It is more narrowly concerned about funding transportation, especially roads for traditional cars and trucks.

We have to help drive the broader picture, whether this committee likes it or not.

May I respectfully disagree?

The problem our country faces is the same regardless of the concerns an individual, governmental agency or the wants of a business or corporation CEO.

I feel we must recognize this to stop the headlong plunge that has put us in this pickle in the first place. All must see and understand the problem and consider it ABOVE our own personal wants.:D

I say we have been taxed enough! These clowns need to learn that we are fed up with THEM wasting OUR money on their pet projects. There would be enough money to fix the essential needs if our president would do what he said he would, and that is go through the spending line by line and get rid of the pork. (Fat chance... it is hard to tell your buddies "No") The government doesn't owe me anything, and frankly I wish they would stay out of my business.

It is just another idea (probably thought up by one or more of the "big 1/.0003 brain trust) to tax FSP's (fuel sucking pigs) and high MPG cars the same. Now, why do you think they would want to do that??

It's so obvious, it's painful. They want to allow fat-cat politicians and other self-important Americans to continue driving their bloated FSP hulks at warp speeds on our public highways.

It's against every single thing we are trying to do here on Cleanmpg.com.

As an observer of American driving habits I have concluded VERY few of us realize why we should be reducing our consumption of oil.

1. Now that gas prices are down no one is slowing down any more. A car in front of you is a jerk to be passed.

2. High MPG car drivers are no exception, quite the contrary. Many drive like Sterling Moss just to prove to all that just because they are driving an energy efficient car doesn't mean they can't speed and drive aggressively with the best of them.

3. Hot Rodding and driving aggressively is totally ingrained into our psyche. It is going to take decades to get us to actually acknowledge the problems this country faces.

I've been thinking about this the past week or so, Bob.

The problem is cultural. People drive FSP hulks because that is what their culture has encouraged them to do. Much of their behavior is cultural. What they assume is "right," "correct," or just plain a "God-given right" is nothing more than cultural affects, what I have previously called brain-washing.

When I spent two years over in Saudi Arabia in my Middle-East-Oilman period, the time away from the US allowed me to understand just how much of what we believe in or assume to be correct is nothing more than the effects of our culture.

Our culture in relation to gas consumption needs to change drastically. This latest proposal does not change this culture, it enforces it and makes it even worse. It's criminal.

Harry

IF administrative cost and privacy concerns were no object, then vehicles should pay for miles travelled based on their weight or weight per axle to account for damage to roads. And they should separately pay for use of fuel to encourage conservation and reduce dependence.

Since that mythical world does not exist, and since essentially all current vehicles use petroleum-based fuels, and since consumption of said fuels is highly correlated to weight, RAISE the existing gas tax to fund road maintenance and discourage wasteful use of imported oil. We are at least 10 years away from needing to account for road damage by BEV's.

This proposal constitutes an attempt to shift tax burden from those causing road damage to those not causing much road damage. Another subsidy for FSP's.

I can not even describe how much this taxation idea not make sense. So now the government is running Banks, most of GM and Chrysler and if this goes through, my life and driving.:mad: Now I am not going to get into politics of it all but let's take this as an example.

I drive Malibu and assuming I average 30 MPG over 15000 miles. = 500 Gallons of fuel used.
Malibu is 3100 pounds.

A co-worker of mine drives Tahoe and averages about 15 MPG over 12000 miles = 800 gallons of fuel used. Tahoe is 5400 pounds.

So i will be paying more for driving Malibu which averages more and weighs less than those living rooms on wheels. :eyebrow::mad:

This idea would make more sense if there was more availability of public transit and not only in big cities like New York, Chicago and such but in the country and suburban areas as well. In order to increase public transit use, hiking the gas tax a bit would be useful and using that money to road, infrastructure and public transit improvement.

Only if the business of the government was so simple. :rolleyes:

Time to disconnect our speedometer cables!

I say we have been taxed enough! These clowns need to learn that we are fed up with THEM wasting OUR money on their pet projects. There would be enough money to fix the essential needs if our president would do what he said he would, and that is go through the spending line by line and get rid of the pork. (Fat chance... it is hard to tell your buddies "No") The government doesn't owe me anything, and frankly I wish they would stay out of my business.


I would agree with you on this one. Point of fact, the Michigan state budget carries 25% without a line item. In other words, we don't know where 25% of the money taken from tax payers goes!

The biggest grief I have is with our elected leaders. I just saw old clown get up on TV and say that he was switching sides, NOT because he disagreed with the ideals of his party but because he was worried about not getting re-elected after 29 years of service. What a smuck! You can't tell me that he is focused representing the people who voted for him. I see clowns like him and I hear about where the deficit is heading and I feel as if I'm watching the first fires of Rome.

The problem is that I DON'T want the government putting a GPS in my car to record where and when I drive. It's none of their freakin' business. If they want to raise a tax, raise an existing tax.

A GPS doesn't have to report to the government the where you've driven, only the number of miles. Therefore, it doesn't need to be a privacy intrusion. We just need to decide exactly what information gets sent to the feds.

Only way I would even think about supporting this would be IF they would remove the tax on gasoline.

A mile tax alone is insufficient, because the more gasoline you use, the more air pollution you cause, irrespective of the number of miles you drive.

A gasoline tax alone is also insufficient because the more miles you drive, the more traffic congestion and road wear you cause, irrespective of how much gasoline you use.

Why shouldn't you pay proportionally to the damage you cause?

Just an example with fake numbers:

Prius cost per mile before tax: $0.10

After tax: $0.15, or a 50% increase in cost

Hummer cost per mile before tax: $0.50

After tax: $0.55, just a 10% increase in cost.

Sound right to you? It doesn't to me.

What if $0.15 per mile is the true cost to society of driving a Prius?

In South Africa, new highways tend to be toll roads, so they pay for themselves. The system's not perfect, but the toll roads are always in excellent condition.

Hi Trai,

The problem with this proposal is that it DOES NOT proportionally require you to pay for the road wear and tear you do , IF you drive a light-weight car, such as a Prius. This law, as proposed does one thing only - it subsedizes heavy vehicles. Civil Engineers have long known that the heaviest vehicles cause almost all the road damage. This was done by measuring the ripples in the pavement, and using a Fourier Transform to find the spacing of the ripples. The most prevalent ripple frequencies corresponded to the wheel distances of the largest vehicles at the speeds on the roads.

A simple way to explain this is that a Bicycle does practically no damage to a modern road, but this tax, would tax a motorized Bicycle at the same rate as a 18 wheel truck.

Simply stupid , would you not agree ???

A gasoline tax alone is also insufficient because the more miles you drive, the more traffic congestion and road wear you cause, irrespective of how much gasoline you use.



A gasoline tax is perfectly sufficient. It corresponds very well not only to how many miles are driven, but also to how efficient the vehicle is. And the efficiency of the vehicle has a good correlation to the weight of the vehicle, which then corresponds to how much damage that vehicle causes to the road system. An F-350 is a much heavier vehicle than a Prius, for example.

By the way, traffic loading on a road is measured in ESAL's, "equivalent single axle loads." In effect almost all significant loading and resulting wear on roads is caused by the heaviest vehicles, large trucks. Cars and motorcycles cause almost no damage to roads. For any road, the number of cars is converted to ESAL's, but it takes many cars to equal the effects of one tractor-trailer.

A mileage tax in effect does subsidize FSP hulks because it makes no distinction between a 12 mpg Tahoe and a 50 mpg Prius. This is absolutely wrong, and I am 100 percent against it. Our society (our culture) needs to promote and encourage fuel efficiency, and not take a giant leap backwards, which is what this latest poorly thought out proposal would do. The tax on gasoline is already a mileage tax. It makes no sense to add another separate mileage tax. Need more money? Simple, raise the gasoline tax.

Harry

I say, institute a national car inspection program. Most states have an annual car inspection requirement anyway, just make it national, and just add in one of the requirements of the inspection as noting the mileage on the car.

They already tax by mile for Diesel and any other alternatively fueled cars in New Zealand and they don't need a GPS unit in their cars to do that.

As Traal said, the GPS is only supposed to remember the number of miles driven, with that number being broken down to "fed" and "local" roads. There is no reason why it has to collect more info. I will acknowlege that if they have the equpment needed to this, they could do more intrusive things, but watchdog groups exist for a reason. That sort of thing happens, and heads role. So possible, but improbable.

That said, how can this be done without state help? Is the FBI going to start keeping track of all cars and whether they seem to be reporting apropriate mileage? If the feds do something, they are going to have to do it in a way that requires the states to track and verify using traditional odo readings when smog/other inspections are done, or when the car is transfered to a new owner, or when its "decomisioned".

As any rate....stupid idea. Much easier to just increase the gas tax. The fed tax is already unfair in that a person buying gas may never drive on a federally subsidised road (they probably will), but they still pay the same tax. I see no reason the unfairness can't continue and we just all pay a little more for each gallon. Heck, I want high gas prices so we can start getting away from the stuff. All the silly little penalties for low MPG cars, and benefits for certain high MPG cars could be done away with and the tax takes care of that too.

What if $0.15 per mile is the true cost to society of driving a Prius?

The point is the 50% taxation rate on the Prius compared to the 10% taxation rate on the Hummer.

I think we have a great opportunity on our hands with this. Place GPS in everyone's car to measure the miles they drive. Then, with this information we can calculate exactly how much wear and tear they put on the roads by use of the vehicle weight and how often they drive. And it would work great for congestion too, based on the size of the vechicle you drive (becuase it would take up more space) we could then figure out how much to tax you because of congestion.

It isn't like someones fuel consumption isn't linked to all these factors.... I say we spend the money and get this moving! (please note the heavy use of sarcasm, since the gas tax really does take all of the above into account. Noting that it is a rough estimate for everything, but still works better than spending the money to come up with a "perfect" system).

A simple way to explain this is that a Bicycle does practically no damage to a modern road, but this tax, would tax a motorized Bicycle at the same rate as a 18 wheel truck.

You're right, the mileage tax should be based on the weight of the vehicle and the number of wheels and axles--in other words, the amount of damage the vehicle does for every mile driven. A motorized bicycle might pay nothing per mile because the road wear is negligible, while an 18-wheeler might pay $1.00 per mile or more.

Note that there has to be a mileage tax in order to charge fairly for road wear. A gas tax doesn't take into account idling in stop-and-go traffic, or travel in hilly areas which uses more gas but doesn't cause more damage to the roads.

And the efficiency of the vehicle has a good correlation to the weight of the vehicle, which then corresponds to how much damage that vehicle causes to the road system. An F-350 is a much heavier vehicle than a Prius, for example.

A Prius gets 46 MPG combined, while an F-350 gets maybe 17 mpg. If road wear is the cube of the axle load, and a Prius is 3000 lbs while an F-350 is 5000 lbs, then an F-350 causes around 4.6x the road wear as a Prius, yet it uses only 2.7x as much fuel and therefore pays only 2.7x as much in gas taxes. Why should the F-350 owner get a tax subsidy?

Note that there has to be a mileage tax in order to charge fairly for road wear. A gas tax doesn't take into account idling in stop-and-go traffic,
My Prius doesn't idle in stop-and-go-traffic. If your vehicle does, then you should pay a penalty, which you do courtesy of the gasoline tax. You are sitting there needlessly pumping out pollutants and CO2, and burning through the world's oil reserves for no rational reason.


or travel in hilly areas which uses more gas but doesn't cause more damage to the roads. That statement may not be accurate. Picture heavy trucks laboring up hills, moving slowly, and putting enormous amounts of torque onto pavement to climb those hills.



No, our society needs to promote using less fuel. Fuel efficiency is only part of the equation. The other part is driving fewer miles.

Okay, you got me on that one. I should have worded it more carefully.

Note that last year was the first year in decades that people drove fewer miles than the previous year. Why did they drive fewer miles? It wasn't a mileage tax. It was because the price of gasoline went up over $4/gallon. This proves that a gasoline tax by itself would produce all the desired effects, and that a mileage tax is not necessary, and in fact would be counter-productive, since it would reduce the penalty on fuel-inefficient vehicles.

Harry

My Prius doesn't idle in stop-and-go-traffic. If your vehicle does, then you should pay a penalty, which you do courtesy of the gasoline tax.

I agree, using more gas should incur more penalty. Thats damage to the enviroment, if not to the road. (Although CO2 emmisions increase the acidity of rain which is also bad for the road). On the other hand, shouldn't someone stuck in trafic be credited, not penalized. After all, its not their fault the road system is so poor (other than their choice of leaders).

A plus to the GPS system is that the gov could actually know what roads people are using, when they use them, and how fast the roads are going. That could dramaticly improve allocation of dollars to get the most bang from the buck.
However doing so mean handing over more data that the article describes. In means handing over data that most people would find obtrusive. In theory, I'd be ok if that data was anonymous, but there are too many ways to figure out where the data came from, so I even I wouldn't be comfortable with that idea.

On the other hand, I wish a private company would create a GPS with "feedback" technology which provides exactly this sort of information for short term alternate navigation and perhaps providing summary reports to interested companies/governments. At least if its a private company, they should realize what kind of financial risk they take by divuging private info. But that has little to do with this "enforced" plan.

One of the reasons I think a gas tax would work better than a mileage tax is that a gas tax is much, much simpler. A mileage-based tax requires either a) incorporation of a lot of technology (think of how much waste it would take to create all the plastic and copper for all the GPS systems), or b) a much greater bureaucracy (measuring your mileage at yearly inspections).

Why take the much more complicated choice when the simpler choice is available?

I would also say that those of us that drive with fuel efficiency in mind do less damage to the roads. It may be a minimal change, but taking off from stoplights the way we do must do less damage than jackrabbit starts.

More visible is the difference between the way we stop and most people do.

I've seen over and over the way pavement gets wrinkled up on the approach to a red light. All that constant braking actually moves the road surface forward, causing it to buckle and fold.

I'd still like to know why an F-350 which does 4.6x as much road wear as a Prius should get a discount by paying only 2.7x as much in gas taxes?

I'd still like to know why an F-350 which does 4.6x as much road wear as a Prius should get a discount by paying only 2.7x as much in gas taxes?

The curent system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than this alternative.

For the fans of the GPS tracking system.

Stop for a minute and think about the infrastructure needed to track every vehicle in America, 24/7/365. Now imagine the typical government agency trying to manage this.

I rest my case.

:biglol:

I say no because I don't want to have to pay for the inevitable technology that will allow me to "cheat" the system.... 18,000 miles a year? oh, no, only drove 3,000 miles!

Hi All,

Here is another problem with this proposal. Gasoline is not always used for road vehicles. It powers lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ATV's, race cars etc. What would prevent somebody from diverting this gasoline to roadway usage? What is to prevent a whole industry (ala 1920's Chicago) from growing up around mileage-tax-free gas.

The purchase point consumption tax has tax is paid without exception. With no GPS on a lawnmower, an exception would need to be made. And the exception could then be exploited. Its a loop-hole ridden way to tax. Its unfair, and its purely the paranoid fantasy (because he probably things high mileage car drivers are cheating) of a coward (because he is chicken to do the right thing) that we should tax this way. If money is needed to keep Minnesota bridges from falling down - then tax gas in the traditional way only at a modern level - not based on cars with 20 th century technology.

Many states have vehicle sales tax. I remember filling out a check on the order of $2500 for my Illinois Prius registration. That is on the order of 10 %. $3000 has been mentioned as the Hybrid premium. That means I PAID $300 more Roadway tax to the state of Illinos than the next guy.

(gasp!) $2500!!!!

Hi All,

Here is another problem with this proposal. Gasoline is not always used for road vehicles. It powers lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ATV's, race cars etc. What would prevent somebody from diverting this gasoline to roadway usage? What is to prevent a whole industry (ala 1920's Chicago) from growing up around mileage-tax-free gas.

The purchase point consumption tax has tax is paid without exception. With no GPS on a lawnmower, an exception would need to be made. And the exception could then be exploited. Its a loop-hole ridden way to tax. Its unfair, and its purely the paranoid fantasy (because he probably things high mileage car drivers are cheating) of a coward (because he is chicken to do the right thing) that we should tax this way. If money is needed to keep Minnesota bridges from falling down - then tax gas in the traditional way only at a modern level - not based on cars with 20 th century technology.

Many states have vehicle sales tax. I remember filling out a check on the order of $2500 for my Illinois Prius registration. That is on the order of 10 %. $3000 has been mentioned as the Hybrid premium. That means I PAID $300 more Roadway tax to the state of Illinos than the next guy.

Oops...

The idea of a mileage tax is just so upsetting, I made a mistake,

It was a $1250 dollar tax for the Illinios New Motor Vehicle Sales Tax...

But, If I would have bought a $17000 (up to $19999) new car, like a Saturn SL2 (my previos vehicle) the sales tax would have been $750. So, the difference is MORE that the $300 above --- it was $500!!

Hi All,

Here is another problem with this proposal. Gasoline is not always used for road vehicles. It powers lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ATV's, race cars etc. What would prevent somebody from diverting this gasoline to roadway usage? What is to prevent a whole industry (ala 1920's Chicago) from growing up around mileage-tax-free gas.



Consider an increased federal gas tax a wakeup call to use less gas, period. Taxing all gasoline regardless of use will inevitably have some gas purchases subsidising roads it is not used on. Consider those non-road-use purchases as making up for the damage larger vehicles are not paying for.

Gasoline is not always used for road vehicles. It powers lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ATV's, race cars etc. What would prevent somebody from diverting this gasoline to roadway usage?
Consider an increased federal gas tax a wakeup call to use less gas, period. Taxing all gasoline regardless of use will inevitably have some gas purchases subsidising roads it is not used on. Consider those non-road-use purchases as making up for the damage larger vehicles are not paying for.

When the damage includes carbon emissions, and the national security problem of the massive transfer of our wealth to countries that hate us, the use -- road or non-road -- is irrelevant.

I think it is an economic crime that while Exxon-Mobile/BP/Chevron/Shell are earning massive profits, and the Iran/Venezuela/Russia/Saudi Arabia governments are raking in far more than Big Oil, the U.S. Government takes in a relative trickle. Yes, tax it all.

The curent system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than this alternative.

Any system where the poor subsidize the rich, such as Chevy Aveo owners subsidizing Hummers, is in dire need of changing.

Sadly, it's the Hummer owners who have the political clout, so it will be an uphill battle to change anything.

I subscribe to the KISS principle.

Just steadily increase the gas tax for non-commercial operators over the next few years while proportionately reducing the income tax, so it's effectively a replacement for CAFE.

I don't like it either, i will gladly unplug any GPS installed in "MY" car or disconnect the VSS. :D:flag:
I'd do the same but, if a tolling system is introduced whereby you have to register and have a tag then you'll probably get penalised for being an awkward SOB! (i'm one of those too!!) I haven't registered with the tolling company so on the rare times i use the tolled motorways i pay a bit more. But at least i dont have to have a minimum of 40 euro in their account and be charged a few euro a month just to have the toll tag! That's the system here in Ireland and for now it's only on some motorways.
But its the thin end of the wedge.
As more people switched to fuel efficient cars, govt revenue dropped due to the cheaper road tax we are charged for those cars. Maybe the govt didn't realise so many would switch to cleaner cars but now they are talking of raising the tax on these cleaner cars to make up the shortfall. Great!
And now, the thicker end of the wedge:
As more people switch to electric cars etc. in the future, govt revenue will evaporate so they have to get it somewhere. Thats fine. We don't mind paying for things like infrastructure. But to have us pay for a hugely expensive system that uses a third of the money it generates to actually run the thing? Thats just wasteful. But it's going to happen because it invades on our privacy and they'll know everything about where we go. Then they can find ever more ways to tax us. Trust me, it's coming and we're going to be made feel bad for resisting it.

ollie

Any system where the poor subsidize the rich, such as Chevy Aveo owners subsidizing Hummers, is in dire need of changing.

Sadly, it's the Hummer owners who have the political clout, so it will be an uphill battle to change anything.

I suspect the rich have even less desire to be tracked than the poor, so I doubt any one class would be for this idea more than any other class.

I remember back in the days when I lived in a certain western European country, that this type of discussion was the topic of the day. Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect this may very well be a similar setup. For instance:

- For a variety of reasons the Government really wants a hike in the fuel tax. Now, any tax raise is not going to sit well at first. That is a given, anywhere.
- So the plan is to make it more appealing by identifying an alternate revenue system - Tax by mileage. People will see the exacerbated unfairness of the "tax by mileage" and many will automatically favor a fuel tax hike instead. Essentially giving the government what it wanted without it doing much of the work of selling the idea.

I would not be surprised if the proponents of this "Tax by mileage" actually have an ulterior motive which is fundamentally manipulative. Its been done before, so why not do it again?

Cheers

MSantos

Here is another problem with this proposal. Gasoline is not always used for road vehicles. It powers lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, ATV's, race cars etc. What would prevent somebody from diverting this gasoline to roadway usage?

There ae several situations where I use gasoline for off-road uses. Lawnmower, weed-eater, boat...

I pay the same gas tax everyone else does for their vehicles. I can save the receipts and use it as a deduction on my annual tax forms, but it isn't as easy and you seem to be making it out to be.

Frankly, I am a little hesitant to claim it anymore.
"You filled up with 25 gallons on your boat?!?". "Yup, it has a 50 gallon tank". It's too easy for that kind of question to come up. It's a lot easier for the rest because I always get right at 5 gallons a week during mowing season.

Would it be inappropriate to make a "gas-powered vibrator" joke?

^

Penalizing those that need gas the most.;)