States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

<snip>

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.

[BR_Parkway]

2. So, to drive on the streets I already paid for, I would have to have a

gov't tracking device installed, allowing more Big Brother tracking of where I go and when? Fuck You!

Seems like they could just tack on the tax upfront to the purchase of a vehichle and accomplish the same thing. No need to keep tabs anyone. But that would depress auto sales, and put no cash in the coffers of those who manufacture these GPS devices. Gee, I wonder why they would pick one instead of the other?

[LiberallyInclined]

4. the streets you already paid for...

need to be maintained and replaced from time to time...putting the taxes upfront on auto sales is a poor idea- there's no way to know upfront how many miles that car will be driving on what roads.

[Wcross]

17. Upfront would be fair.

Most vehicles have a finite lifespan depending on how well they are maintained. It is rare to see a vehicle with 200,000+ miles on it.
I would remove the gps system and leave it in my garage, who would know?

[LiberallyInclined]

28. how so?

how is an upfront tax fair to someone who drives very little, and replaces their car regularly, every two years?
my father-in-law comes to mind- he drives to and from his business, 7 days a week, 2.5 miles each way, and he drives almost NEVER otherwise. and he buys a new buick every two years.

how would an upfront tax be fair to him?
as compared to someone who puts 25,000 or more miles a year, and keeps their car for 10+ years, like my father does? 200,000 miles on a vehicle is not a rare thing in his world.

[upsidedownaussie]

39. seems like...

if someone doesn't replace their car for 15 years, it's usually because they can't afford to. Compare that with someone who replaces their car every few years, and therefore is probably in a better financial situation and better able to cope with the tax burden. It seems like it would be a slightly less regressive tax.

Besides, isn't the tax on gas essentially a per-mile-driven tax with some modifier based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle? Seems like a much better way to go.

[LiberalFighter]

60. He doesn't trade in his car?

[LiberallyInclined]

70. would a trade-in affect such an up-front tax?

or would it be a flat-rate on the sale of a new vehicle...?

btw- my father-in-law doesn't generally trade-in his cars- he either sells them at a good price to an employee or friend, or when his kids were younger, they'd go to them.
he gets his wife a new car every 3 years, same deals with the old ones.

my father drives 'em til they just about drop, and then gives them away, or scraps them. but my mom gets a new car every few years, and her cars generally get traded-in.

[HuckleB]

48. The government would know the next time you had to register...

the vehicle. All they have to do is check your odometer, unless you're going to mess with that, too.

[mudderfudder77]

64. It is way too easy

to screw with the odometer.

[trogdor]

10. That's not what this is about.

Although I feel the urge to don one of these -> :tinfoilhat:

What it's really about is protecting the auto industry's right to churn out humungous SUV's by taking the taxes off gasoline (and reducing its price per gallon) and putting it on usage.

Eastern states already do this to some extent. Examples are the Mass. Turnpike and the New York Thruway. Of course, if you want to avoid the tolls, you stay the hell off the toll roads. Simple as that.

[Coastie for Truth]

45. That is the real issue - Protect Big Oil and The Big Three

The Big Three do not want to produce fuel efficient cars - the GM EV1 was a "smoke and mirrors" charade to temporarily placate the California Air Resources Board -- period.

GM has the absolute contractual right, today, to "clone" Priuses and put a Chevy "bowtie" on them, today. They gained that right in settlement of the frivolous, vexatious law suit against Toyota and Toshiba. This law suit was over the metal hydride battery patents that GM bought from a starving "start up" (and then sold to TexacoChevron after GM coerced Toyota and Toshiba into a settlement).

GM filed another frivolous, vexatious lawsuit against Sumitomo to keep them from making the components for the electric motors used in hybrids and EV's.

This is all freaking Schwarzenegger smoke and mirrors to protect the Big Three and Big Oil.

Just raise the gasoline tax - and let those of us with the foresight to buy Priuses to keep the "benefit of our bargain."

People who buy gas guzzling SUVs should pay for their selfishness and boorishness.

[HuckleB]

49. I suspect that's at least partially true.

[Charon]

54. Taxes

What makes you think they will take the tax off of gasoline. This is a move to maintain tax dollars if the conservation movement really catches on. Gasoline will still be taxed. I do not think you will see the price drop substantially.

[mulethree]

56. Hmm - how do trucker weigh stations work?

Around here, trucks stop at 'weigh stations' - sometimes - they often seem to be closed.

I had the impression that they pay taxes based on the miles they drive in each state and the weight of the truck + cargo.

I'm guessing the GPS gizmo is to count how much of the odometer miles are in-state as opposed to out-of-state? So combine that with the vehicle weight and calculate the tax. Heavier vehicles pay more per mile?

The GPS gizmo for this could have a map of the GPS coordinates of the state boundaries. Now for every mile it just calculates in-state or out-of-state and adds a mile to the tax counter when that mile calculates as in-state. It doesn't have to keep a memory of where you've driven, doesn't need any tracking functionality.

But if the practice spreads to other states, then expect the devices to record the miles for multiple states. Then someone would know that - since your last vehicle inspection - what states you've visited and how many miles in each.

[nolabels]

65. The weight of the trucks is one of the biggest factors tearing up the road

directly behind mother nature. What they should be taxing more is them damn airlines. That is wasteful enterprise there, very inefficient transportation fuel factor/ man hours spent / weight transfered wise. The general population subsidizes it in hidden ways

[saigon68]

34. 1984 is coming

This will be in addition to the gas TAX

LOL

[maxsolomon]

3. fine with me.

needs to be pro-rated by vehicle weight.

a mile in a hummer does more road damage than a mile in a fiesta.

and no tracking devices are needed. just report mileage when you renew your tabs.

[AllegroRondo]

6. just check the odometer

works for me.

[spanone]

16. Not that simple.

They are testing GPS systems that monitor your mileage and WHERE you drove. It also takes ALL incentive out of conservation. Bad idea.

[sybylla]

46. Agreed, they need to raise the gas tax

or there's little financial incentive to continue to buy and drive hybrids.

[Anakin Skywalker]

55. "needs to be pro-rated by vehicle weight"

Your idea sounds better.

[Newsjock]

5. The Hummer Protection Act of 2005

Call it what it is: another way to soak the poor and middle-class. We already pay by the mile. It's called a gas tax, and it penalizes those who drive large vehicles that cause more damage to the roads.

[Supersedeas]

69. these tax breaks for the environmentally conscientious will not stand

[ClintonTyree]

7. Another "hidden" tax increase................

that will hurt the working poor more than anyone else. The poor people who have to drive 50 miles or more a day to their minimum wage jobs will get whacked. The rich POS won't care one iota, they're usually urban dwellers anyway (in the GOOD parts of town), so they can afford it.

Another great idea that drives up already ridiculous prices of new autos and a whack on the back to those with older vehicles. AND another way to know where each and every one of us is at nay given moment. How conveeeeenient.

[asjr]

12. If this includes Taxi Firms we will hear about it!

[Ms_Mary]

24. I drive about that just to get to work and back daily. It kills me on gas,

but my options are pretty limited in the boonies.

[MountainLaurel]

61. Got it in one

Here in DC, people who work middle-class jobs like teachers, police officers, civil servants, etc., can't afford to live where they work (unless they've had the good fortune to have been able to buy a place 5-10 years ago, in which case profits on a home sale would make up the difference). So, they live 60 miles away in Frederick and Front Royal and drive in to the DC suburbs each day.

[MARALE]

8. This is a horrible idea

Smaller cars that get better gas milage do not do as much damage to the roads like the big SUVs. This would not be an incentive to buy the more gas efficient cars. This is just wrong!

[sarcasmo]

9. Disconnecting the speedometer cable, would it be a crime?

[AP]

11. Why can't we just have progressive income tax?

[seriousstan]

13. States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile

---cut because they filled story with fluff------

theOfficials 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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

[bluedog]

BAD IDEA for us

we have a small Pest Control business............our autos have to move everyday.every month.......the price of gas is high already and we cannot pass this along to our customers because they are mainly the elderly and retired...being in Fl.......yes we use more gas due to the air conditioning in the vehicles.......and for our spray pumps to run.....

again these ideas are hurting the bottom of the link..... one big pollution cutting factor would be for bushy boy to stop wasting fuel and dirtying our air by stumping around the country.......

[Rockerdem]

It has some upside

It would cut the amount of pollution. It would also save lives by cutting down on the number of miles that are driven for frivolities. Not sure if I want some state official going through my whereabouts 24/7 though.

[Ms_Mary]

20. It would penalize those of us living in rural areas who must drive

distances to go to work and have no access to public transportation. I might add that those of us in rural areas also tend to live in more economically depressed areas and can least afford more taxes.

[mike6640]

14. that is a bad idea

No one is going to allow the state or 'whoever' to put a tracking device on their car.

Sounds to me that Oregon has possibly allowed their gas taxes to be spent on something other than roads (much like California).

[Itsthetruth]

1. Government Can Track Your Movements

And the government will be given the power to track your movements all over this land. That's the real danger.

[woodsprite]

19. They already do with "OnStar" technology.

Not to mention, they can unlock your doors by pushing a button on their end. Open up for search and seizure.

[Ms_Mary]

25. Onstar skeeves me out. Even if I could afford a car with it, I wouldn't

buy one. I'll stick to buying used cars I can afford.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

27. 'Onstar' ads are all over Air America Radio. I hate them (Onstar) - n/t

[Mairead]

15. The ACLU and other pro-privacy groups

will go mad over this, I hope. 'Big Brother is watching' indeed.

[spunky]

18. If they must raise more funds for road maintenance

due to lost gas tax revenues from hybrids, it should be in the form of tolls, then they don't have to track people's vehicles.

[LiberallyInclined]

29. tolls DO track people's vehicles.

here in illinois, they have the I-Pass- an electronic device mounted in your car to automatically collect the tolls.
as of Jan.1 of this year, the tolls were DOUBLED for people who don't use the I-Pass device.

[spunky]

31. Well shit. n/t

[KissMeKate]

21. great idea. immediate connection between driving and the costs of driving.

eom

[Sin]

22. Taxed 3 times yippie

Taxed once to pay for roads, taxed gas to maintain roads, taxed for driveing on the roads were taxed for with tracking to boot:) hehe and we were pissed at Tea and stamps at first. I wonder how much it would cost to get a horse.

[HuckleB]

51. You do realize that gas and automobile taxes...

don't cover all of the costs of roads and road maintenance? People who drive are subsidized by those who don't.

[DistantWind88]

67. And people who have four effing brats

are subsidized by those who are childless.

We ALL benefit in the end.

[Mike Daniels]

68. Your argument could be applied to almost any example

Home schooling parents still have to pay taxes that go to public schools.

How is that any less fair than your example?

And no, I wasn't home schooled and I don't have kids so I don't have a dog in that hunt but it works on the same principle as your example.

[LinuxInsurgent]

23. Big Brother again...

GPS locators on your cars?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

26. "Every breath you take, every move you make..." ORWELL'S HELL!!!-n/t

[high density]

30. Libertarian economics?

no thanks.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. This is not necessary

You raise the yearly registration on heavy vehicles maintain a gas tax and you don't have to track people.

[Ian David]

33. GPS to track mileage? Gee, have they heard of an ODOMETER???

And don't they already record the odometer readings during auto inspections?

And don't we already have a "mileage tax" by taxing gasoline?

Why the hell should a Hybrid that drives from Los Angeles to San Diego pay the same tax as a Hummer that makes the same trip?

Personally, instead of charging per mile, I want excise tax based partly on THE MILES PER GALLON of the car.



Tax each car based on how many MGP they get.

Imagine if General Motors sold a fuel-cell car that uses gasoline as its hydrogen source, gets 100 MPG, and costs $130,000.

And if we eliminated excise tax on any vehicle that gets over 75 MPG.

That will also encourage automakers to sell cars with better mileage (say 50-70 MPG) they could even raise the prices on the more efficient cars and still make shitloads of money.

I would sell cars at levels like:

45-55_ MPG Hyprids:........$10,000 - 20,000
56-65_ MPG Hybrids:........$15,000 - 30,000
66-75_ MPG Hybrids:........$25,000 - 60,000
66-75_ MPG Fuel Cell:......$40,000 - 90,000
76-100 MPG Fuel Cell:......$60,000 - 200,000
100+ MPG Fuel Cell/Other:..$150,000+

100% Solar Cars would pay zero excise tax.



If you own an electric car, you would get a partial tax-credit to install solar, wind or geothermal powered charging stations.

The oil companies could profit from developing fuel-cells, as well as more efficient ways to strip Hydrogen from gasoline.

All those oilfields that have been sucked dry could be converted into "solar farms, "wind farms," or sources of geothermal energy.

Offshore oil platforms can be converted to harness wind energy, tidal energy, or solar energy to fraction Hydrogen from sea water. (But what do you do with all that salt?)

Maybe the oil companies can figure out a way to scrub Hydrogen Sulfide pollution out of the air and use it to make Hydrogen for fuel?

The environment would be happy. The automakers would be happy. The customers would be happy. The oil companies would be happy.



And by liberating all that Oxygen out of the water, could we possibly be diluting the CO2 in the air and lowering global warming?

It used to be that environmentalism was a STATUS SYMBOL. Having solar cells on your roof showed the world that you were wealthy enough to be Earth-friendly.

Ed Begley Junior talked about his electric car at every opportunity, back when Johnny Carson hosted The Tonight Show.

But now, the status symbol is how big your car is and how much gasoline you can afford to buy.

[happyslug]

35. But the odometer does not tell them where you were and are......

Now part of this is being driven by the car companies who want to force out fuel efficient cars. A gasoline tax would encourage buying small cars something Detroit does not want. Thus the mileage tax which someone has to pay whether he or she is in a 50mpg car or a 10mpg car.

Secondary, you have people who want to know where everyone is (Basically to make it easier to find them). GPS will provide that advantage. Basically if I want X, I can find X by locating his car. 99% of the people will be within walking distance of their cars 99% of the time. Easy to pick them up.

[Commendatori]

36. One of the perks was supposed to be saving money, and now

this new tax just to pay for the privilege of driving an underpowered tin can? Screw that. Further, there is no fucking way I'm going to make it easier for BushCo to track me like that (I do not have OnStar). No car I can afford to drive does that much damage to roads or the environment. Putting myself in a car even smaller than the one I drive now and letting the government have another way to track me is out of the question.

[heidler1]

40. They already have it skewed to favor the gas hogs.

The smog tests check for ratio of pollutants in the exhaust of a car not the quantity so the big engines can add five or more times the quantity and be in compliance.
Photo Voltaic Cells have the potential for bootlegging fuel by allowing us to make our own hydrogen without paying any tax. I like it. I'm sure this worries the shit out of the Republicans.

[applegrove]

37. Just so long as people are not taxed on the amount of money they have!!

NOT!

[Nordmadr]

38. Even if you do this program

which I am not sure if I like or not, why the need for GPS? Why not just have your milaeage read every time you renew your registration or get your vehicle inspected? Why does their have to be a GPS system that will track everywhere you go? If that happens I am leaving the fucking country.

[Strelnikov_]

43. Pretty Dumb, Isn't It. Just Use The Odometer, Just Like Your Gas Meter

Tally up the 'usage' yearly at the time of plate renewal, assess an annual bill accordingly.

This method could be superior to the current gas tax in that the rates could be varied by type of vehicle (in a perfect world, of course).

On the other hand, why not just raise the tax to reflect lower revenues. Oh, forgot, the Hummer owners wouldn't be too happy, and they are all that counts today.

Like we have the resources to equip every vehicle on the road with GPS and track them.

[amazona]

66. because rolling back odometers is already a big industry

It is difficult enough as it is to find a used car that hasn't been tampered with. I've somehow ended up with two of them and I'm a careful, nay, close to paranoid shopper.

A huge proportion of vehicles have the odometer dis-engaged at some point in their operations.

A law like this would mean everybody would have to do it.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[DistantWind88]

41. They already do this - - it's called the gasoline tax.

Drive more miles, buy more gasoline, pay more tax. Cars that get better gas milage pay less tax. Isn't that what we want?

[mudderfudder77]

42. They would never use the odometer

It is way too easy to circumvent. My first truck didn't even have an odometer. 68 Ford that got 8 miles to the gallon, damn that was a good truck...

[Sgent]

44. Personally

Just increase the gas tax.

Doing so discourages the use of SUV's and other large vehicles, while increasing their desire to use more feul effecient vehicles, and raising revenue.

What's the problem?

I guess if politically neccissary you could allow work vehicles to apply for for a refund of some portion of the gas tax.

[Mr.Green93]

47. Maybe all travel should be taxed

They could use the new IDs to track day to day movement.

[Thor_MN]

50. OK, put on a modifier based on the vehicle's weight

The heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear it places on the roads.

Rail transportation, which places no damage on roads and is maintained by business (through freight charges) has been almost wiped out. Instead, all that weight is being moved on roads, which are maintained largely through fuel taxes, throwing a bigger burden on consumers. Granted, truckers pay taxes as well, but remove them from the highways and the amount of maintenance needed decreases dramatically.

[mccoyn]

52. How do you buy non-road gas?

Like for the lawn mower. I put that in a gas can, not in my car. Can I walk to the gas station and fill the can or do I have to have a car there to authenticate my miles?

What about the farmer or rancher? These people use lots of gas, but never drives on the public roads.

[kat21]

53. How the Hell does driving during rush hour -

have anything to do with wear and tear on the roads? Besides, not only would I prefer not to drive 36 miles to and from work each day I also would prefer not to do it during rush hour. When your employer establishes your work hours you just don't have much of a choice. Our public transit system sucks too when you're daily commute of 2 hours is extended to 3 if you take the bus. Not only that, even if they had a light rail system between my home and work, the metro system in L.A. is horrible. They are more concerned about checking tickets than they are about people getting harassed on the cars. Sorry, I could go on for hours about my experiences on the metro.

[David__77]

57. Bad, bad idea.

We do this now via the fuel taxes. This provides a palpable incentive to purchase more efficient vehicles. As for arguments that this does not too greatly penalizes drivers of "gas guzzlers" who don't wear on the roads more than others--they are nonsense: "Gas guzzlers" tend to be heavier vehicles which certainly do wear on the roads more than lighter vehicles do.

[Blue_Tires]

58. good intentions, but a shitty idea

all the RWers on the car boards i post on (and I'm already outnumbered 100-1) are having a field day with this (the standard 'liberal-taxing-nanny-state' lines ad nauseam)...

ANY kind of gov't used GPS tracking device is wrong, no matter how they color it...if they REALLY want to make an impact, then do one of the following:

1. pressure the EPA to increase average fuel economy

2. increase the tax on gasoline

3. increase the EPA fuel consumption (aka 'gas guzzler') tax, which currently at it's cheapest is a paltry $1,000. AND finally start applying the tax to pickups, SUVs, and large (non-diesel) trucks.

4. instead of tax breaks, start adding penalties for vehicles that weigh over a certain amount (ex: >4000 lbs for cars, 4500 for pickups, and 5500 for SUVs)

Start with these ideas, and these folks can shelve this half-assed idea of penalizing frequent drivers instead of inefficient vehicles.

[rinsd]

59. Big brother in the guise of environmentalism (nt)

[infusionman]

62. I am a Home Health Nurse...

I can put on 60 miles or more per day. I won't be able to work if I get taxed by the mile.

How much would the tax be?

[420inTN]

63. This seems counter productive.

While I understand why states are concerned about losing tax revenue, if they implement this, they reduce the incentives to buy fuel efficient cars. If I can buy a gas-guzzling, emmisions-spewing SUV, or a more fuel-efficient car and pay the same road tax, I might buy the more comfortable SUV.

[depakid]

71. Stupid engineer

David Kim should try taking a few economics and science classes at OSU.

It makes no sense at all to simply charge drivers by the mile using a straight up regression. That's just dumb.

Now, if you wanted to factor in things like weight, fuel efficiency and location (i.e., where are people likely to use chains and studded tires that tear up the roads)- that might make sense- and I might even buy into the idea....