States want to "tax by the mile"

[relimw]

<common sense>
Gasoline is sold by the gallon (or other unit of volume depends on locale).
Taxes are added to each unit of volume sold (roughly 33 cents here in AL).
Unless there's a hybrid vehicle discount on gasoline that I'm unaware of, the correct amount of tax is being paid.
</common sense>

The complaint is, is that high mpg vehicles are buying less fuel, therefore less money goes into the road & bridge coffers.

I'm actually surprised at how many people here actually are taking the stance that the govt is trying to tax them more than their 'fair share'. I thought everybody here was a liberal.

 

[Space Cadet]

Seems to me that buying GPS chips for every vehicle is a really expensive way to track gas tax fairness.

Just raise the gas taxes. Yeah, I'll mind, but I'll make adjustments. Hopefully the skinny tiny lady with the coiffure and the toy poodle in her lap will do the same with her Hummer.

 

[rainman::|:|]

Seems to me that buying GPS chips for every vehicle is a really expensive way to track gas tax fairness.

Just raise the gas taxes. Yeah, I'll mind, but I'll make adjustments. Hopefully the skinny tiny lady with the coiffure and the toy poodle in her lap will do the same with her Hummer.

But what happens in 50 years when gas is obsolete? You can tax some of the fuels, but as I said, devices that recapture energy won't be paying their share. Unless all vehicles will recapture the same amount of energy, so fuel taxes can be fairly applied...

 

[wdlove]

I don't like the idea of the GPS device. The North East already has a number of toll roads, that is one way to collect money per miles driven. At least the would be anonymous.

 

[Bibulous]

just what all is that onstar system recording...

 

[zelmo]

just what all is that onstar system recording...

I was thinking the exact same thing...

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

It will NEVER happen. Wayyy too much invasion of privacy.

Not really since there are several factors involved. One being is that driving is a privilege, not a right. Also some insurance companies already survey their drivers for milage.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Tax by the mile would discriminate against those that live in rural areas. They have to drive to do anything (that includes me), and therefore pay more in taxes.

There will always be somebody that thinks one tax or another is unfair. As budgets are stretched in state funding, the burden of certain costs needs to be paid by those that make the most use of a particular service. In this case the roads.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have all the answer, but it takes a group as smart as Mac users to get it.

1. All revenue needed by a taxing body needs to be taken in the form of an income tax. NO other taxes. No sales tax. No tolls. No property tax. If it means income tax goes from 30-some percent to 50-percent, so be it.

2. "Punitive damages" - why the heck is that going to the plaintiff and the lawyers? Punitive damage money needs to go to one of several funds in the area of wrong-doing (health care, education, etc.) Lawyers and plaintiffs only get the direct award.

3. Import drugs from Canada? Why? Why not just do what they did to get the lower prices - outlaw direct marketing of drugs to consumers. No marketing costs = lower prices.

4. FCC - hello, we need to ban the sounds of emergency vehicle sirens, honks, and car crashes from the radio. They cause more accidents than Janet Jackson or cell phones.

5. A school district should be one high school, its feeder middle schools, and their feeder elementary schools. Let's give those elementary people a reason to teach students for the long term. Having the answers in 2nd grade is much less important than laying a solid foundation for what you're going to learn in 7th.

6. Under no condition should I receive money for something that happened to a relative. Can I sue for punitive damages? Sure, but see #2 above.

7. Tickets and fines. Let's face it - a $400 ticket or fine means one thing to me, quite another to someone who makes that in a month, and something else to someone who makes it in an hour. Tickets need to be issued as a percentage. Parking ticket? That'll be .2 percent of your salary, please. Speeding ticket? That'll be .4 percent. Fork it over. Now that's *real* equal justice.

Some good ides. I really like #7. This is something I have supported in the DC area since many big wage owners have said they look at fines as a cost of doing business.

 

[absolut_mac]

It will NEVER happen. Wayyy too much invasion of privacy.

I agree, there's absolutely no way that this is going to happen.

If it does, those politicians will be retiring a lot sooner than they anticipated

 

[jsalzer]

Anonymity (sp?) of tolls

I don't like the idea of the GPS device. The North East already has a number of toll roads, that is one way to collect money per miles driven. At least the would be anonymous.

At least your tolls are still anonymous. In Illinois, you now have to pay *double* the toll to remain anonymous. If you want to pay the standard amount, you have to mount a device on your car that deducts the amount from a pre-paid account as you drive through a rapid drive-thru lane.

Sounds fine and dandy, until you explain to people that there's nothing to keep the state from putting those toll devices all over the place (deducting no tolls) to keep a constant diary of where your car has been.

Scary.

 

[stubeeef]

We should have everyone DNA tested. Those that have a probability of long life should be taxed higher to reflect their propensitiy to use a lot of Social Security and Medicare. Tax'm till they bleed. Infact require blood donations from this awful group of people that will suck our society dry. Those that will probably not see Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare, should be Taxed high too! Get'm while we got em.

We should tax the everlivin out of everything that moves, cause movement causes change which has to be managed by a sluw of civil engineers, zoning boards, and politicians. Then levy a tax to pay for the tax infrastructure, because collecting all of those taxes can be expensive, and we need to pay for the system so that it can "efficiently" suck us dry.

 

[DavidLeblond]

We should tax the everlivin out of everything that moves, cause movement causes change which has to be managed by a sluw of civil engineers, zoning boards, and politicians. Then levy a tax to pay for the tax infrastructure, because collecting all of those taxes can be expensive, and we need to pay for the system so that it can "efficiently" suck us dry.

Actually EVERYTHING moves at the atomic level...

sounds about right

 

[Sun Baked]

Like you aren't already taxed more for buying a small fuel efficient vehicle, now they want to charge you by the mile.

A who is going to pay for these devices... not the state.

Yay... pay more for a popular hybrid than the regular car, pay more for maint, pay more for insurance than an SUV, pay more for taxes due to all the prior.

Hope to make all the up-front costs in lower fuel bills, now they want you to penalize you for that -- because you chose to give up your SUV.

 

[DavidLeblond]

Like you aren't already taxed more for buying a small fuel efficient vehicle, now they want to charge you by the mile.

How are you taxed more? I thought most states give you a $2000 deduction?

 

[KCK]

At least your tolls are still anonymous. In Illinois, you now have to pay *double* the toll to remain anonymous. If you want to pay the standard amount, you have to mount a device on your car that deducts the amount from a pre-paid account as you drive through a rapid drive-thru lane.

Sounds fine and dandy, until you explain to people that there's nothing to keep the state from putting those toll devices all over the place (deducting no tolls) to keep a constant diary of where your car has been.

Scary.

They kind of do that already here in CA. To help monitor traffic jams and give people how long travel times are between certain points they have devices that read the Fastrak transponders that people use to pay bridge tolls. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to track someone based on these devices. If you don;t want to take part in the traffic monitoring program you can get a special bad to put your Fastrak in. This is suppose to prevent the road side devices from picking it up.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I am sure it's lobbiest that want to kill the hybrid to keep them rich.

 

[Sun Baked]

How are you taxed more? I thought most states give you a $2000 deduction?

Not all fuel efficient cars are hybrids and/or qualify for tax deductions.

You won't get one for a Smart Car or a diesel, but you'll pay an extra for a diesel engine and the import of the Smart into California.

And the market adjustment sort of kills the deduction of the hybrids, since you are more likely to pay MSRP instead of paying invoice and get a rebate for the same car with a normal drivetrain.

So yes that $2000 deduction should really make up for the premium you'll pay for a popular hybrid in high demand.

So the popularity tax you pay isn't always something that can be made up very quick.

 

[applebum]

... the burden of certain costs needs to be paid by those that make the most use of a particular service.

If we applied that across the board, then those that use welfare, SS, medicaid etc would be the ones paying the higher taxes. It seems like their is a double standard here. Instead of trying to figure out which cars use the roads the most, lets just tax the rich. I don't care if they use the roads at all, they have the money, let them pay for it.

 

[mactastic]

Not all fuel efficient cars are hybrids and/or qualify for tax deductions.

You won't get one for a Smart Car or a diesel, but you'll pay an extra for a diesel engine and the import of the Smart into California.

And the market adjustment sort of kills the deduction of the hybrids, since you are more likely to pay MSRP instead of paying invoice and get a rebate for the same car with a normal drivetrain.

So yes that $2000 deduction should really make up for the premium you'll pay for a popular hybrid in high demand.

So the popularity tax you pay isn't always something that can be made up very quick.

Not to mention that, at least in CA, the tax rebate goes goes down by $500/year IIRC, until it reaches 0 in 2007. In 2003 the tax rebate was $2000, in '04 it was $1500, this year it's $1000.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

The complaint is, is that high mpg vehicles are buying less fuel, therefore less money goes into the road & bridge coffers.

I'm actually surprised at how many people here actually are taking the stance that the govt is trying to tax them more than their 'fair share'. I thought everybody here was a liberal.

By that logic, if I were to suddenly begin buying less food/clothing/etc, then I should pay more sales tax on said items, simply because I'm purchasing less, to make up the difference. That just doesn't float. If I purchase one gallon of gas, then I should be taxed on that one gallon, not how well I make use of said gallon. If I were to be taxed based on efficiency, then why not tax people with low metabolisms for not making the most of the food they buy; the applications are endless and the slope is indeed slippery.

Yes, you are correct, not everyone here is a liberal. While I prefer not to ally myself with any political party, I'm usually conservative on financial issues and moderate to...not so conservative on social issues and the like.

 

[Sun Baked]

Most countries tax you more for buying a gas hogs or large vehicles (since they tend to be one and the same) which tend to do more damage to the roads than lighter vehicles like a Smart Car or motorcycles.

Basically if you look at the current gas taxes and vehicle gross weight taxes, they tend to be rather fair based on how much wear these vehicles actually impose on the infrastructure.

Taxing vehicles by mileage will actually impose an unfair burden on the vehicles that are smaller and lighter and tend to cause the least damage per mile traveled.

 

[jsalzer]

Eroding the road and the small intestine

By that logic, if I were to suddenly begin buying less food/clothing/etc, then I should pay more sales tax on said items, simply because I'm purchasing less, to make up the difference. That just doesn't float. If I purchase one gallon of gas, then I should be taxed on that one gallon, not how well I make use of said gallon. If I were to be taxed based on efficiency, then why not tax people with low metabolisms for not making the most of the food they buy; the applications are endless and the slope is indeed slippery.

Actually, this example has a little logic flaw itself - in that the gas tax is meant to proportionally offset the erosion of the roads, which erode due to use (by cars).

What you eat, how much of it, and how only goes to eroding your own personal digestive system - not a public digestive system. If you were using someone else's digestive system to process your food then, yes, you would need to be taxed based on the amount you eat.

Now, that's just a logic issue, but it doesn't mean I support the gas tax philosophy. I pay to have *access* to roads and to benefit from the faster delivery of goods and services that result from said roads. Whether I use them or not is up to me. Like I said before - let's just do a straight income tax to cover all of it. Sounds equitable to me.

 

[wdlove]

We should have everyone DNA tested. Those that have a probability of long life should be taxed higher to reflect their propensity to use a lot of Social Security and Medicare. Tax'm till they bleed. Infact require blood donations from this awful group of people that will suck our society dry. Those that will probably not see Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare, should be Taxed high too! Get'm while we got em.

We should tax the everlivin out of everything that moves, cause movement causes change which has to be managed by a slue of civil engineers, zoning boards, and politicians. Then levy a tax to pay for the tax infrastructure, because collecting all of those taxes can be expensive, and we need to pay for the system so that it can "efficiently" suck us dry.

It seems that you are suggesting a complete change in our government. Your suggestion would mean that 100% of our pay each week would go to the government. Then a bureaucrat would decide how much that we need to live. A definite killer for innovation and trying to get ahead.

I pray that you are just being factious.

 

[stubeeef]

It seems that you are suggesting a complete change in our government. Your suggestion would mean that 100% of our pay each week would go to the government. Then a bureaucrat would decide how much that we need to live. A definite killer for innovation and trying to get ahead.

I pray that you are just being factious.

Just bad sarcasm R R R R R R!