Panel: Raise gas tax, charge drivers by the mile

[Jeep789]

Source: Associated Press

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Fri Feb 27, 4:53 am ET

WASHINGTON – Raise federal gasoline taxes to help pay for road projects?

Not during a recession, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said.

Then how about moving toward a system that finances highway construction by charging motorists by the mile?

snip>

The report recommends moving to such a tax, which would mean equipping cars and trucks with a device that uses GPS technology to track the number of miles driven and compute the tax owed. The amount could be adjusted to charge more for travel during peak traffic hours.





Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_ot/mileage_tax

---

I really hate this idea. Luckily, the Obama administration seems to also.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Regressive.

:thumbsdown:



Windfall Profits Tax, however...
:think:

[w4rma]

31. No to higher gas taxes & especially milage taxes. Instead, impliment the windfall profits tax. nt

[MadHound]

2. Ah yes, let's install a device that not only keeps track of how far you go,

But also where you go.

Not to mention that this penalizes people who live in the country, who have bought fuel efficient cars, and those on low/fixed incomes.

Bad idea, hope it dies a quick death.

[Kali]

10. too be fair, regular gas tax penalizes rural people too.

but yeah stupid idea (have they promoted its "safety" benefits too? - the big red flag that they may be serious)

[Jeep789]

19. They did have the nerve to promote the environmental benefits

as people would choose to drive less. Hypocritical ashholes!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. This is yet another example of creeping techno-totalitarianism

the low tech solution of a gas tax is non-intrusive and anonymous. The high tech solution puts a tracking device into your car so that big brother can rewind it and determine where you were and what you were up to at their convenience whenever they choose.

[Not Me]

24. but the problem is --for a host of reasons-- people are using less gas

Whether because of the price of gas climbing, or better fuel efficiency, or simply driving less, gs consumption is dropping and so is tax collections. The short term solution is to raise the tax to supply enough money to cover road maintenance and construction. (Assuming you agree with the gas tax model in the first place.)

The long term problem comes when we start with alternative energy solutions for vehicles on the road. Should gas-comsuming cars and trucks pay the tab for roads that will be used by electric, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles?? A better strategy needs to emerge, and this is one idea.

[Jeep789]

25. I don't see why income taxes shouldn't be used

After all, everyone uses the roads even if they don't drive. And we all use the products that are delivered over the road.

I would like to find a way to discourage heavy vehicles for personal use, perhaps adding a purchase tax based upon weight.

[Not Me]

27. That *could* work

And I think we need to be open to all options.
One consideration would be how expensive setting up a new bureacracy would be.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. The problem with the federal tax is that it is a flat per gallon fee.

0.19/gallon is a silly way to tax gas that over the last year has ranged in price between around 1.80 and 4.00/gallon.

The obvious answer to revenue shortfall here is to increase the tax by making it a sales tax or better yet a vat, based on the transaction value. Done correctly, this tax would extract some of the windfall profit that went to the oil companies back before the crash when demand was pushing up against supply and they were making absurd profits off of the price surge.

For the medium term we should be encouraging alternative renewable low carbon fuels, and the way to do that is again to raise the cost of using oil based fuels. Should gas consuming cars pay the tab for roads used by the almost non existent fleet of electric hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles? Yes of course they should. If and when that becomes a revenue problem for maintaining transportation infrastructure, which would be exceptionally good news, then policy changes would be in order. All currently feasible alternative fuel vehicles need to get buy their fuel somewhere, so eventually they too will have to start paying for the infrastructure.

The 'black box' idea is basically counter productive. It does not reward people for fuel efficiency but instead charges them for miles traveled regardless of gas used per mile. It is a fine example of how to be truly stupid about policy and I am vastly skeptical about the motivation behind these proposals.

[sarge43]

4. That 'idea' puts an overwhelming burden on the rural poor

who have no alternative and must drive considerable distances to work, to shop, etc.

[pasto76]

7. I dont live rurally, but I travel alot. Like a really lot. and its all for work!

And who pays for maintainence on the gps units?

Funny how a Republican is proposing more "Big Guvment", isnt it.

I think I would rpefer high gas prices, to keep it in peoples minds that gasoline is not renewable, nor everlasting.

[Uben]

5. Unfair taxation

This idea unfairly taxes people who live rurally, and those that have to commute to their jobs, not to mention the intrusion of people's privacy.

[denverbill]

6. Vehicles which cause the most road damage are the ones which should pay the most.

The more a vehicle weighs, or at least the more PSI it puts on the road surface, the more damage it does to the roads. If everyone in the country drove small cars and there were no semis, SUVs, or monster trucks, we wouldn't have to be resurfacing and rebuilding our roads every few years and wouldn't need nearly as much money to fund road construction. I realize semis and construction vehicles aren't going away, but they should be charged according to the damage they do, and work should be done to improve their load distribution so that they cause less damage. SUV's and monster trucks used for commuting and pleasure driving should be discouraged through tax policy also.

I say keep and raise the gas tax, now, while gas is cheap, because it won't be cheap forever and the sooner we wean ourselves off it as much as possible, the better.

[Jeep789]

12. True, I read recently that our bridges and roads were taking a

big hit because of the increase in SUVs.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

21. Whats the difference with a 1955 Belear and a 2008 Hummer?

They are both heavy vehicle.. does the Hummer weight a more or less?

[RantinRavin]

22. Prius drivers should be paying a surcharge then

As the Prius is one of the heaviest small cars around and therefore does the most damage. Weighs over 50% more than a Corolla.

[Lorien]

37. Complete load of bullshit. nt

[jsamuel]

39. The Prius and Corolla weigh aproximately the same based on toyota's website.

http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html
http://www.toyota.com/corolla/specs.html

[RedEarth]

43. A Prius weights over 50% more than a Corolla? ... where did you come up with that?

According to Toyota a Prius weighs 2932 lbs and a Corolla weighs 2822 lbs.

[Chemical Bill]

46. I agree. I read somewhere that 18 wheelers...

cause 100 times the damage that cars do, and pay 10 times the road use taxes (I assume that includes gas tax). So car (and pickup, and even SUV) drivers subsidize the trucking industry. When bridges get weak, the first thing they do is limit the weight of the trucks. That should tell you....

Bill

[Abq_Sarah]

47. So we jack up the gas tax

Which causes harm to poor people and people living in rural areas and then we magically wean ourselves off it and onto what exactly?

[acmavm]

8. Bad idea. Really bad.

[sarcasmo]

9. Like no one will figure out how to rig that system and the poor will get screwed again.

Affordable electric vehicle, NOW!.

[razors edge]

40. That is exactly why

they intend to tax by the mile, electric vehicles pays no gasoline tax.

[Still Sensible]

11. Tax by the mile--a stupid idea that I believe was already discarded

last week!

[Jeep789]

17. I had hoped it was going away

But that doesn't appear to be the case. They are going to have to make up the loss of revenue that gas taxes produce somehow but this is a terrible idea.

Personally, I think the money should come from income taxes (based on the idea that everyone uses the roads even if they don't drive) and possibly adding a tax on purchases of vehicles depending upon their weight (especially for those not used solely for business).

[B3Nut]

13. He can shove his GPS up his ass.

If ever there was an idea that needed to seriously die in a fire, this is it. I drive a fuel-efficient subcompact hatchback, but log a lot of miles gigging with my band and doing tech support. This would not be good for musicians at all.

I have confidence that President Obama is smarter than that. It's nice to have someone intelligent in the White House after all these years of putting food on our families. :)

[madrchsod]

14. yup-- another dumb idea

[slackmaster]

15. The problem with this approach to raising revenue is...

More people will telecommute, car pool, use public transit, and whatever other creative ways they can think of to avoid paying the tax.

Revenue targets will not be met, so the .gov will end up borrowing more money or raising some other taxes to make up the shortfall.

[elocs]

16. This will not hurt those with money. They will simply pay and keep driving as usual.

It will have a very negative impact upon the many of us who struggle to just get along. Regressive to the max.

[madmom]

18. What about those who live were there is NO mass transit?

[Jeep789]

20. It would really hurt us in CA. nt

[madmom]

23. I live in a small town in Ohio, our closest mass transit is at least 50 miles away.

[Kolesar]

26. Higher "tag fees" and put up toll gates

We should raise fuel taxes by $400 Billion a year and use the receipts to insure 40 million Americans.

[Skink]

28. Now to devise computer program to siphon GPS info and revenues collected.

[liberal N proud]

30. Another burden on the middle class and poor

These fuckers think that use tax is the only fair tax when exactly opposite is true.

It will be more money from the pockets of those who are already suffering from inflation.

[jsamuel]

32. bad idea

but even if something like this was implemented, it should be a function of mileage AND vehicle weight

[antimatter98]

33. Obviously a plan from academics who have tenure and walk to work. n/t

[tabasco]

48. Got a source for that? Or just making shit up?

What do you have against academics who walk to work?

[leftyladyfrommo]

34. I think that sucks. I drive in my work so I drive a lot each day.

I already pay for what I drive because I have to put gas in my gar a lot more often than regualar folks.

[Lorien]

35. It's an attempt to punish those who drive fuel efficient vehicles

and would be yet another giveaway to Big Oil.

[radfringe]

36. self-defeating in a way

charge by the mile and people won't drive anymore than they absolutely have to - the first place people would cut would be locally i.e. not going out for dinner/movie or other local entertainment/events. Next - cut out the long weekend mini-vacations and this will pretty much cause the hospitality industry to contract even further

finally - if you are charged by the mile, it undercuts the incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles. Any savings someone by see by driving a fuel efficient vehicle will be eaten up by taxes.

[notadmblnd]

38. Why not just set up toll booths and you can create jobs too?

We already pay taxes to use the roads. Does this mean that my federal and property taxes will go down?

[Dumak]

41. Most road damage is caused by large trucks

The proportion of damage increases faster than vehicle weight - in other words, a truck that is 10X the weight of your car does much more than 10X the damage of your car. How about we tax vehicles in proportion to the damage they cause? Seriously, the money should come from income tax and from a tax on new gas-guzzlers.

[truthisfreedom]

42. Nobody's going to track everywhere I drive with a GPS. Not gonna happen.

Lojacking every car in the US is unacceptable.

[happyslug]

44. This is attempt by the trucking industry to keep diesel taxes low

The trucking industry pays the most money in fuel taxes, but also uses the road more (and most wear and tear on highways are from trucks). Today, cars, while used LESS on the road then trucks (and I mean semi-trailers, pickup trucks and SUVs I throw in with cars) do less damage and thus pay more then the damage caused by cars (Trucks pay more then cars but less then the damage done to the highways). With the drop in Gasoline sales, the trucking industry is looking at fuel taxes going up which will force more car drivers to more fuel efficient cars, which means less money for highways and further hikes in fuel taxes. Sooner or later you will get to a situation where truckers (Whose ability to reduce fuel more then they have is at its limit) will face having to pay a higher percentage of the fuel taxes used to maintain the highways. The trucking industry wants to continue the present subsidy (Described above) but knows it can NOT do that if people switch to electric and more fuel efficient cars. Thus the trucking industry is looking for other sources of revenue for highway maintenance under the cover the environment, fairness or any other argument they can come up with to keep cars subsidizing trucks (And remember Pickup and SUV are "Cars" for purposes of this discussion, trucks are Semi-trailers or other medium and heavy duty trucks).

Thus why the push for per mile tax rate. A tractor trailer would be taxed at the same rate as a moped, and the trucking industry will love it (And as I bicyclist I suspect the long term plan is to throw bicyclist who use highways to pay the same fee, anything to keep the taxes on the trucks as low a possible).

[Jeep789]

45. Then again, we all use the products the truckers move

So we will have to pay their costs one way or another, anyway.

[happyslug]

50. But the cost of moving things by truck is part of the price

Why should I subsidize someone's else's desire for the latest toy from China? Remember we are NOT talking about unfair taxation, but cross-subsidies, why should I help pay for something used to ship goods to someone else? I agree I should pay for the things I use, AND that includes the cost of Shipping those items, but that is reflected in the price I pay when I purchase those items, NOT in the price I pay as I peddle my bicycle down the road.

Remember the purpose of this law, pay per mile not per gallon, is to transfer the cost of maintaining the road from the people who do the most damage to the people (the buyers of items shipped by truck) to other people, even people who do NOT buy items shopped by truck (I know such people are rare, but there do exist). Why should the cost of maintaining the road be "free" to truckers do to the fact we all use things shipped by truck? People vary as to the use of things that are shipped and thus the cost of maintaining the roads. The traditional way to tax is based on use, and truckers use the road, and the people who have things shipped pay the truckers (And buyers of the goods pay the people who had paid the truckers). That I have no objection with that. My concern is shifting these cost from the beneficiary of the trucked in goods to other people. Yes, we all benefit from having items trucked in, but should NOT all the costs involved in having something trucked in to assigned to the profit from having the items trucked in? This tax by mileage defeats that whole purpose.

This is unlike Mass Transit, where the cost of NOT having Mass Transit is clogged highways (Thus cars subsidizing mass transit makes sense, for it permit more people to take transit and thus less cars on the roads to cause traffic jams). Where is the advantage to the person who opts to bike everywhere and pay the per mile rates instead of driving his car at the same rate? (Assuming this is extended to bicycles, but if not then what is the advantage of the person who opts for a high mileage car?). Both the driver of a high Mileage Car and the Bicyclist still buy items that are trucked in and pays the cost of trucking those items in WHEN they buy those items. If they do NOT why should they help pay for shipping the items in? Where is the advantage to them? In the case of Mass Transit the removal of cars from the road is enough of grounds for auto drivers to support mass transit do to fact mass transit lessen commute time by lessening traffic congestion but where is the advantage to those people who does NOT buy a particular item? When they buy an item, they pay for the trucking in of that item with the purchase price. In the proposal, people will have to pay to subsidize trucking in items they even refuse to buy and maybe even want to boycott.

No just because we all depend on items being trucked in is NOT a grounds to subsidize the trucking industry, which is the real purpose of this idea of having people pay per mile as opposed to per gallon.

[Juche]

49. Invasive and doesn't reward people who have high MPG cars or alt. fuels

Pass.