I don't believe that a flat income tax is really an answer but I do agree that a single source of tax revenue would be far more efficient. I think a simple sales tax should be levied on everything that way they government doesn't have to know how much money I make and they don't have to employ people to audit income tax returns. The government should promote the welfare of its citizens and if I fail to report my income correctly then I become a criminal. If tax was based solely on consumption, then the more gas, food, clothes, electronics I buy, the more tax I pay. This doesn't over tax the poor because they simply won't buy as much stuff. If I make more money, I am not taxed at an increasing rate, I am taxed based only on what I buy, which would be more than when I was poor. Give people their full income to spend and they will spend it and you can still collect your taxes while promoting more commerce.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
States want to "tax by the mile"
- Thread starter DavidLeblond
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
there was once a horse tax. And a horse-and-buggy tax. Then there was a newfangled contraption called the automobile which shot that all to hell. (actually, I think there still is a horse-and-buggy tax in some locales).
I do not know the answer to this (evolving) problem. As mentioned previously, it is only a matter of time before we run out of oil anyway, so we should probably put on our thinking hats now anyway.
I vote for hovercars. Or a possible battery-tax to offset revenue losses, depending on the things. Toll roads are also a possibility. Considering the level of scan-technology, it could be pretty painless.
I do not know the answer to this (evolving) problem. As mentioned previously, it is only a matter of time before we run out of oil anyway, so we should probably put on our thinking hats now anyway.
I vote for hovercars. Or a possible battery-tax to offset revenue losses, depending on the things. Toll roads are also a possibility. Considering the level of scan-technology, it could be pretty painless.
Sun Baked said:
An easier way would be for states that want to charge by the mile for a "road tax" to use annual safety inspections. We have them in Virginia, and the mileage could easily be recorded at that time. Farm use vehicles are exempt in Virginia from inspections.
I like the base idea of a tax based on the miles you drive. Why should I pay an equal amount of fuel taxes with my 25mpg at 12k miles a year, when someone that gets 50mpg at 24K miles a year pays the same?
It seems like the gas tax is the way to get the use fees, and the VLF can be used to collect monies from heavier vehicles. Taxes are used to influence behavior as well as collect money, and I can't see how making it less attractive to drive a gas efficient car is a good behavior for the government to be encouraging.
The solution is simple, raise the gas tax further. THis would incourse more fuel efficent vehicles and increase revenue (or at least stablize it).
Don't we pay enough taxes already?! Income tax, sales tax, insurance tax, gas tax, bed tax, and a bunch of taxes I can't remember -
It makes it really hard for people with jobs that pay under $12.00/hour to just LIVE, let alone have some higher-costs items like Macs. PLEASE, stop the taxing! Taxes are starting to get as bad as they were back before the War of Independence (no offense to Englanders). IMO some taxing is necessary to keep a government running, but this is simply ridiculous.
Anyway, back to the subject -
NO to tax-per-mile. It's an invasion of privacy and wouldn't work in a few ways, such as people ripping the device out of their car and giving it a big pitch
And like someone else mentioned, what if the majority of your driving is on a farm or personal, non-state maintained road?
It makes it really hard for people with jobs that pay under $12.00/hour to just LIVE, let alone have some higher-costs items like Macs. PLEASE, stop the taxing! Taxes are starting to get as bad as they were back before the War of Independence (no offense to Englanders). IMO some taxing is necessary to keep a government running, but this is simply ridiculous.
Anyway, back to the subject -
NO to tax-per-mile. It's an invasion of privacy and wouldn't work in a few ways, such as people ripping the device out of their car and giving it a big pitch
And like someone else mentioned, what if the majority of your driving is on a farm or personal, non-state maintained road?
I can see the people with a diesel car buy a $500 truck and just drive that piece of crap down to the gas station to fill up a 55 gallon drum once a month.herr_neumann said:
That way they only end up paying for 10 miles in mileage taxes monthly, then they drive the car and never stop at a gas station. To get around that idea they had of paying for your mileage taxes via the pump.
Much easier for people that get 800-1000 miles on a single tank.
---
Basically it would force some people into the same dangerous behavior they used during the 70's gas crisis.
This whole thing reminds me of a bad drought year we had in CA. Everyone had to ration water since there wasn't a lot available. The thing is people did a very good job of conserving water and even after the drought was over water consumption remained low. Of course the water agency had to raise the rates since not as much water was being used as before.
next tax
Tax on having children....
Whooooops, China already started it, if you have more than one (maybe two?)
Why couldn't we think of that first
Tax on having children....
Whooooops, China already started it, if you have more than one (maybe two?)
Why couldn't we think of that first
iindigo said:Don't we pay enough taxes already?! Income tax, sales tax, insurance tax, gas tax, bed tax, and a bunch of taxes I can't remember -
It makes it really hard for people with jobs that pay under $12.00/hour to just LIVE, let alone have some higher-costs items like Macs. PLEASE, stop the taxing! Taxes are starting to get as bad as they were back before the War of Independence (no offense to Englanders). IMO some taxing is necessary to keep a government running, but this is simply ridiculous.
Anyway, back to the subject -
NO to tax-per-mile. It's an invasion of privacy and wouldn't work in a few ways, such as people ripping the device out of their car and giving it a big pitch
Granted taxes have gotten out of control. But at the same point no one from the voters to politicians seems to have any idea on how to cut spending. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, we all have our pet spending initiatives.
As someone without children, I resent money being spent on schools and soccer fields. But as a working stiff (meaning that I am truly among the working poor), I believe that there should be better mass transit, and more affordable at the same time.
What invasion of privacy, if it were tied to a system of verifying milage at the time of inspections? And as I have mentioned, many states already have exemptions of one sort or another for "farm use" type of vehicles.
As much as we all hate taxes, the "pay as you go" method of taxation is probably the most fair. Either that or we move to a nation that every road is a toll road.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Resent money for schoolssszzz?!? You mean education for the masses?!? You are out on a limb there aren't you? Schoolsszzz?!?
Comeon Chip, every liberal in the world (and a lot of us right of moderates) want better education and schools!
Maybe we should just make those lil kiddies work 20 hours a day making sneakers! That would boost the economy with low cost labor so we could compete with the Chinese prisoners.
I know you must be kidding Chipster, don't hold back on the schoolsszz! Maybe Abortion Clinics, but not the schoolsszz!
stubeeef said:
Keep in mind I am a Gay male, and in my state they are limiting my rights to adopt a child with my lover. Why should I pay for something (in particular all these "fluff" courses) that I will never take advantage of? Should not taxes be levied on those couples that have legal recognition of marital rights?
There are those that oppose the county "giving" us land to put in a Dog Park that we as users/members then join to provide the up keep. There are those that oppose subsidized childcare, housing, and other "benefits" that allow the working poor to work. Some oppose funds to police for traffic enforcement, since they should be stopping "real" criminals.
I was sort of kidding. I do support schools, but it was also to illustrate that there are many things that we each want from our tax dollars. But at the same time serious since so many are telling me that programs I support are no longer worthy of support by tax dollars. I did chose to focus on local tax spending issues for my rant.
And we will never be happy with all the choices. You mentioned abortion clinics. I am not sure whether you were serious or not. I support the right of woman to choose. It is between her and her God or higher power. In the end if that child can not be cared for properly, should not that option be open to her? And since you opened the gate that may send this to the Political Forum, should we not deny overseas adoptions in order to prevent unneeded abortions in the US?
The only way I see to try and keep taxes under control is to move towards a "pay as you go" system. You use the highways more, you pay more. We are already seeing this in our parks systems with user fees to off set losses in tax dollars to maintain them. Some areas are now charging upwards of $500 if you call for an ambulance. At the same time lets send anyone that is over 65 to a wilderness area and have them try to live off the land? Since the elderly won't be able to pay for their own care and services. And we won't have that many elderly since many youngsters won't be able to afford shots to keep them safe from childhood diseases.
In the end i offered what I did because some seem to selfish to look beyond their won needs.
Interesting on two points....
First.. This is the first major fallout from the Bush Tax cut. You see, most all states get Federal funding to maintain the roads, schools, etc. With the cut in federal funding, many states are having a very hard time trying to make ends meet, and are having to come up with innovative ways to get the moneys needed to make things work. Since no one works for free, these bills still need paid. It is sad though that a.) the local politicians can't this forthcoming, and b.) both parties can't reasonably slow spending and balance the budget. Both should be possible, even in time of a so called war.
Second, and the most scary, is the willingness for people to give up the right of privacy. It is not fathomable for one to have liberty without the full right of privacy. To not have this privacy, puts one's total trust in the government, and to this point, no government has ever proven that it can be totally trusted. Even stranger still is the willingness for a majority of the people to do so.
Just remember, the core of the thought behind the second amendment wasn't for hunting, or criminals, but was to allow the people of america solely to remove it's own government if it ever got really bad ( RE: Afghanistan ).
This tax by the mile is a stupid idea, and is akin to taxing skinny people more at the grocery store for not eating enough.
What a crazy world we live in.
Max.
First.. This is the first major fallout from the Bush Tax cut. You see, most all states get Federal funding to maintain the roads, schools, etc. With the cut in federal funding, many states are having a very hard time trying to make ends meet, and are having to come up with innovative ways to get the moneys needed to make things work. Since no one works for free, these bills still need paid. It is sad though that a.) the local politicians can't this forthcoming, and b.) both parties can't reasonably slow spending and balance the budget. Both should be possible, even in time of a so called war.
Second, and the most scary, is the willingness for people to give up the right of privacy. It is not fathomable for one to have liberty without the full right of privacy. To not have this privacy, puts one's total trust in the government, and to this point, no government has ever proven that it can be totally trusted. Even stranger still is the willingness for a majority of the people to do so.
Just remember, the core of the thought behind the second amendment wasn't for hunting, or criminals, but was to allow the people of america solely to remove it's own government if it ever got really bad ( RE: Afghanistan ).
This tax by the mile is a stupid idea, and is akin to taxing skinny people more at the grocery store for not eating enough.
What a crazy world we live in.
Max.
applebum said: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.
Keep in mind that I was half serious and half joking. I am just tired of the rants that taxes are too high, and this group and that group gets "my" tax dollar without thinking as to what others pay and what they may get for the pet program.
I am sick and tired of those that seem to say, "I've got mine, now you get yours". We are going into a battle of over increases in tolls on the Dulles Toll Road in order to pay a part of the MetroRail to to the Dulles Airport. What I am hearing is those that "earn" enough to drive their Hummers each dfay do not want to pay the $250 a year in extra tolls to make sure that others might not have to sit in traffic.
Keep in mind with what I was saying is not a tax the rich program for the highways. I will not get into an argument if Hummer drivers should pay more than a Prius driver, there could be an argument that they should. What I think is fair that both drivers should pay an equal share in the roads. Now if the state decides that that the environmental benefits of a Preius deserves special consideration, they can then look at that as a special incentive to boost ownership of these vehicles
maxvamp said:
In keeping with the subject of this thread on a "road tax", the federal government generally only pays for Federal Highways, not the state or county roads. There are Federal programs that are hit by GWBs tax cuts, the issue is more of the state gas taxes and their sue to fund transportation improvements.
The subject of paying by the mile is a local issue not driven by the GWB tax cuts directly.
Sun Baked said:Re: CaliforniaThey need to tax you more because they are diverting funds.
And most likely to pay for the deferred maint on roads and bridges, along with earthquake retrofits that still need to be done.
But in the end we have the sole responsibility for such changes since we elected the fools in the first place, and could replace them in the next election if we had an attention span greater than a fruit fly in heat.
Sun Baked said:Re: CaliforniaThey need to tax you more because they are diverting funds.
And the usual deferred maint on roads and bridges (which gets more expensive the longer you wait), along with earthquake retrofits that still need to be done.
A historical note on this thought. Some may remember the collapse of the I-95 in or near Greenwich CT back in the 80's. This was known as the CT Turnpike. Tolls were collected that were to be used to pay bonds and the upkeep. In the end the funds ended up in General Funds, and Turnpike had in the end placed signs saying that it was legally closed, use at your own risk. Luckily a court said that the State of CT could not close an interstate without offering a reasonable alternative.
And the technology angle, least we all forget that California has been leading the charge for increasing the fuel economy of vehicles, cleaning up their emissions, and the push towards alt-fuel and electric vehicles.Chip NoVaMac said:
In fact they wanted 1% of the vehicle sold in California not to use gas or diesel.
Now they are saying, you've met our expectations -- now we're going to lump some additional taxes on you to penalize you for doing what was asked the last 25 years.
But you're right, if it does get passed -- every single politician in office should have their ass tossed out.
Sun Baked said:
To be honest, as a person that has supported better MPGs on all vehicles over the last 25+ years, I might also find my ass out in the street if I were a politician.
For it never really occurred to me that higher MPG meant a lower tax revenue in order to keep the highways that the public demands going. The newer vehicles, as well as the disparity in MPG ratings of the "haves" and "haves-not" has created something that few really thought of. I know I didn't. And how many of you really thought of it too?
Chip NoVaMac said:
I kinda thought it was a bit out of character.
Me Three! I have been a vocal hgher CAFE guy, would never have thunk it!
Gets in to "What is the common good." I am OK for taxes that give us protection-fire/police/military, and for education -Elementary/College, and out of the conservative norm - some health coverage - Medicaid, some other saftety net programs like Social Security, Limited Unemployment, children health programs, and infrastructure building/maintaining - airports/highways. I am sure that there are some holes in things we need, but to be honest and accurate the government is very ineffecient with wealth distribution/aid.
I believe most of the above are common good programs, but some may not agree.
Have a good morning, cause the average american will work till april with all income going to taxes, work hard till then cause we need your cash, after that slack off - it's your problem!
edit: political in 3.....2......1.....
stubeeef said:
Hope not....
In re-looking at the article that is the basis for this thread, I am struck by Oregon's and California's concern that they are seeing shrinking gas tax dollars. It reinforces both of our perceptions that we did not see the consequence of conservation methods also.
The higher fuel prices are hitting hard the average persons budget. And with the news yesterday ($2,25 to $2.50 a gallon is predicted by summer in the DC area, which means $2.50 to $3.00 in harder hit areas like California) I see further cut backs in driving habits for those that can least afford it.
Not really shrinking dollars, but not rising as fast as they need to.Chip NoVaMac said:
The fed has been cutting the federal highway spending quite a bit.
So the shrinking federal dollars available to the state, means the state is losing ground on highway funds.
Heck even some of the funds the military used to pay to keep critical freeways in good repair has shifted to rail lines, since they have opted to move more cargo via rail instead of by semi. And of course all the military base closings.