CBO: tax per mile = good

[Tempest]

Quote:
"Judging from estimates of the costs of highway use, a system that charged for all such costs would have most if not all motorists paying substantially more than they do now -- perhaps several times more," the report said. "Such a system would maximize the efficiency of highway use by discouraging trips for which costs exceed benefits."

The report said VMT taxes "would create incentives for people to limit highway use to trips for which the benefits exceed the costs, thus reducing or eliminating overuse of highways and helping identify the economic value of investments in highways."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/25/uncle-sam-considers-taxing-motorists-miles-driven/

Looks like driving might be getting more expensive.
And who gets to determine what is a "benefit" and a "cost"?

 

[robertcope]

I wonder how that works for those of us who put significant miles on the race track? Surely they don't expect me to pay them for my time on a private facility.

These things always crack me up because they're never about doing away with the old system, just adding on to it. Basically, it is strictly about taking more of our money in a new way.

I don't know that I'd mind a well implemented "mileage" tax, if it went directly to road repairs and they dropped the gasoline tax. But I doubt it will be well implemented, I doubt it will go directly to road repairs, and I doubt the gasoline tax will be dropped.

I also don't think my 2300lbs Miata does the same damage to the road as Bubba's F350 dually, but I guess that falls into the 'well implemented' category. But assuming they did factor that in, you have the same problem as the gas tax, ie people start buying smaller cars is just like them buying more efficient cars, throws the numbers off.

robert

 

[Trav]

Good God when will these buggers stop this insanity and spending and cut the darn taxes instead of trying to put the tight shoes on us at every turn.
This just isn't right.

 

[OilNerd]

Most of these VMT schemes revolve around GPS devices that track and log your every move. Of course, we know that the government would never use this data for anything but collecting road taxes, and that the black boxes we'd be forced to install would always protect our privacy.

We'll pay one way or another, but I'd prefer a system that's less invasive to our privacy. I also don't like the control over our lives it would give politicians.

Count me in as one of the skeptics that believe this tax would just be an additional tax, not a replacement tax.

 

[Trav]

Germany put in the Lkw-Maut back in the early 2000's.
Its for trucks but they always discuss putting it on for cars.
Just another way to rip the driving public off.

Check the collection units out.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:On-Board-Unit_(Mautsystem).JPG&filetimestamp=20080721143742

 

[Jim 5]

All of the criticisms above are valid. Here's one more plus an observation:

1. Social engineering. Some people don't think people should be able to drive at all. The problem is, most people can afford to and do it for work or for pleasure. They hate that. The way to change this behaviour (exercised by people in a free and democratic society) is to tax it to death. That is the problem with certain interest groups....their fundamental lack of buy-in to basic liberties gauranteed by democracy if those liberties conflict with what they view as the right way for someone else to act. They don't think I should be free to drive around if I can afford to. The way to change that is to make it more expensive.

2. Increased Efficiency. If I drive around in a car that gets 100MPG, tax collection for gas consumption goes down and revenues begin to drop. Governments can't live with that. Furthermore, if it costs me less to drive around, then I'll likely drive around more, and the social engineers don't approve of that behavior (see #1), so hence the need to tax me by mile.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: Jim 5
All of the criticisms above are valid. Here's one more plus an observation:

1. Social engineering. Some people don't think people should be able to drive at all. The problem is, most people can afford to and do it for work or for pleasure. They hate that. The way to change this behaviour (exercised by people in a free and democratic society) is to tax it to death. That is the problem with certain interest groups....their fundamental lack of buy-in to basic liberties gauranteed by democracy if those liberties conflict with what they view as the right way for someone else to act. They don't think I should be free to drive around if I can afford to. The way to change that is to make it more expensive.

2. Increased Efficiency. If I drive around in a car that gets 100MPG, tax collection for gas consumption goes down and revenues begin to drop. Governments can't live with that. Furthermore, if it costs me less to drive around, then I'll likely drive around more, and the social engineers don't approve of that behavior (see #1), so hence the need to tax me by mile.



Nothing else to add..but yep!

 

[robertcope]

I hate to break it to ya'll, but roads do cost money. I'm not saying the respective governments shouldn't cut spending, etc etc... believe me, I think they should. But ultimately, someone has to pay the cost of roads. Who should that be and how should the money be collected?

robert

 

[Trav]

Then what the heck are we paying gas taxes and road use taxes for?
They always claim its to keep the roads up.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: robertcope
I hate to break it to ya'll, but roads do cost money. I'm not saying the respective governments shouldn't cut spending, etc etc... believe me, I think they should. But ultimately, someone has to pay the cost of roads. Who should that be and how should the money be collected?

robert

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/57456

 

[Drew99GT]

I think one problem is some federal gas tax money never ends up going towards roads and infrastructure. It gets lumped into the general fund. Same thing happens with most all tax revenue meant for a specific purpose. SS and Medicare are case in point.

 

[MNgopher]

Jim 5, that was an excellent post.

Yes, roads do cost money. I don't think anyone can debate that. As was pointed out, some of the money that is paid into those taxes never comes back to the roads it was supposed to be for. In MN, some of the money that was supposed go to roads is now diverted to "mass transit", which may or may not be a benefit to the roads for which it was collected.

I view the mileage tracking as a solution looking for a problem. Can mileage be tracked? No doubt. Do we need to? In my mind, no. In my eyes, the fuel tax is already somewhat indexed for miles driven and impact on the roadway. Drive a lot? You'll pay more. Drive a heavier (and less fuel efficient) vehicle, you pay more. Jack the tax to the appropriate level and be done with it.

Unfortunately to some, as was pointed out, this isn't enough social engineering (ie: everybody will pay more, even those who choose to drive less or switch to more fuel saving vehicles).

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I think one problem is some federal gas tax money never ends up going towards roads and infrastructure. It gets lumped into the general fund.


Since the federal gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993, I "think" it all goes to road maintenance, and then some.

The fed pays around 90% of a lot of state and local road projects, and we yap like little puppy dogs to follow their rules. State laws like drunk driving limits and (formerly) top speed limits are heavily influenced by the heavy handedness of the feds.

Personally wish they'd get rid of registration fees and toll roads and make it all a gas tax. Remember a small car pushes against pavement to push air out of the way, and road damage goes up with the 4th power of weight... so an 18 wheeler that pays $5000 in taxes a year still isn't paying proportionately for its damage compared to a 1.5 ton passenger car.

 

[SEMI_287]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Then what the heck are we paying gas taxes and road use taxes for?
They always claim its to keep the roads up.


To line the pockets of the government that's what. When they actually DO repave a road they do such a [censored] job that they're back to the way they were after winter because the snow plows chew them up.

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I think one problem is some federal gas tax money never ends up going towards roads and infrastructure. It gets lumped into the general fund.


15.5% of the gasoline/gasohol fuel tax goes to the Mass Transit Account. (2.86¢ of 18.4¢ per gallon, Source: FWHA)

I use mass transit, for about two weeks a year, when I visit family in North Jersey and NYC, but get to pay for it all year.

 

[NHHEMI]

It really scares me the way so many people think the solution to every problem is to raise an existing tax or to implement a new one.

 

[SteveSRT8]

X10!

We have to learn how to abstain.

 

[Torino]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
It really scares me the way so many people think the solution to every problem is to raise an existing tax or to implement a new one.
Yes, I am a BIT dismayed having a lot of 'sheeple' lining up to vote MY rights, freedoms and wealth away. But, I am drinking a lot more 'TEA' recently. John--Las Vegas

 

[grampi]

I'm all for maintaining our highway infrustructure, but raising taxes is the LAST thing they should do. The FIRST place they need to start is removing all the fraud, waste, and abuse out of the system, and there's a lot of it. Raising taxes on the already over-burdened taxpayer is not the answer...

 

[antonmnster]

Our effective tax rate - the proportion of taxes to income - is about the lowest in the industrialized world. This is especially true if you're high income.

You get what you pay for.

Everyone wants their money and their freedom, but no one wants to pay what it actually costs.