Instead of paying tax at gas pump, you may pay by the mile - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 10-05-2004, 10:33 PM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
I think this is an awesome idea but I don't think we'll see it until alternative fuel vehicles make up a significant portion of the vehicles on the road...



Quote:
Paying your road taxes in the future might depend more on how much you drive than how much gasoline you pump.



Texas is among a group of states researching how to replace the fuel tax with a fee based on the number of miles traveled making every road a virtual tollway. Transportation officials from across the world discussed the concept here at last month's annual meetings of the trade groups representing the highway and tollway industries.



Fees for miles traveled would be measured by Global Positioning System receivers embedded in vehicles. The system would track which roads a motorist uses so the virtual tolls could be distributed to the appropriate agency.



Full story...



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2828417

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 10-06-2004, 02:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

I think this is an awesome idea but I don't think we'll see it until alternative fuel vehicles make up a significant portion of the vehicles on the road...







Full story...



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2828417



I think its a terrible idea..its no one elses business except for someone who im selling the car to how many miles I traveled. i dont want a GPS in my car ever
schu is offline  
#3 Old 10-06-2004, 02:39 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
Isn't mileage on your car title? I think if the government really wanted to know they could find out. They could just send out an undercover agent to peek in your car window.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 10-06-2004, 03:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,211
I think it's draconian. There was talk a while ago about this, and i think it's rubbish. I wouldn't be surprised if it was David Blunkett's idea.
Loki is offline  
#5 Old 10-06-2004, 04:08 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Won't someone work out how to remove the GPS receiver? Then removal will be offered to mates by those that know how to do it.



And it would mean those with fuel-efficient vehicles would pay the same as those with gas-guzzlers.
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#6 Old 10-06-2004, 04:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurmudgeon View Post

Won't someone work out how to remove the GPS receiver? Then removal will be offered to mates by those that know how to do it.



And it would mean those with fuel-efficient vehicles would pay the same as those with gas-guzzlers.



yea..it would be easy to tamper with
schu is offline  
#7 Old 10-06-2004, 04:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

Isn't mileage on your car title? I think if the government really wanted to know they could find out. They could just send out an undercover agent to peek in your car window.



the thing is that i dont think they are sending undercover agents..i just dont want a machine recording what im doing..i shouldnt have to report how many miles i travel to the government..if they want to spy on me i cant prevent it..(im sure they dont want to)
schu is offline  
#8 Old 10-06-2004, 05:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
Sometimes it seems like the government works on making taxes as complicated as possible.
Marie is offline  
#9 Old 10-06-2004, 07:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
As more hybrid and alternative-power vehicles are built, Forkenbrock said, gas-tax collections will suffer.

how about we up the taxes on cigarettes and then encourage more people to smoke? seriously the only thing this is going to do is reinforce the belief that liberals hate cars, oh and obsfucate the tax issue so people don't notice them raising taxes. and it's a convienent excuse to put a GPS transmitter in everyone's car, fvck off big brother.

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
#10 Old 10-06-2004, 10:34 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
I think it's good simply for an environmental reason. If people are taxed per mile they're more likely to think about taking unnecessary trips. I also like the idea that the tax can be adjusted during peak hours and a surcharge added for less fuel-efficient vehicles. I also like that the money goes to the state where the driving is actually done.



One way or another you're going to pay. I'd much rather have a tax based on my usage than have my income, sales, or property taxes jacked up.



I guess I just don't understand the "I don't want the government to know what I'm doing" mentality. I know quite a few people have it. I figure I do nothing wrong - I go to school, go to work, go home, visit family - I have nothing to hide and couldn't really care less. And like I said, if they want to know what you as an individual are doing, they'll find out.



They would definitely have to work on a way to prevent fraud though. Maybe police officers could detect the GPS (or rather the lack of a GPS) with some sort of radar-like signal. Then have steep fines if you don't have a box. Don't know.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#11 Old 10-06-2004, 10:41 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Sorry, but requiring a GPS device that tracks where you go and what you do is an invasion of privacy.



I have nothing to hide - but I may want to change that some day!
Tame is offline  
#12 Old 10-06-2004, 10:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
No, no, no. Doesn't the amount of gas you buy indicate the amount of driving you do (depending on fuel efficiency, of course)? Big Brother, no dice.
Christy is offline  
#13 Old 10-06-2004, 10:45 AM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
I actually heard of an interesting idea around the situation that would make public transit competitive.



Transfer the expense of road construction and repair from property taxes to wheel taxes and gas taxes.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#14 Old 10-06-2004, 10:47 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by christy13 View Post

No, no, no. Doesn't the amount of gas you buy indicate the amount of driving you do (depending on fuel efficiency, of course)? Big Brother, no dice.



Yes, and in this scheme, those with fuel efficient cars will be charged the same as those who drive less efficient cars the same # of miles.
Tame is offline  
#15 Old 10-06-2004, 10:48 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post




Transfer the expense of road construction and repair from property taxes to wheel taxes and gas taxes.





So...only those who actually drive benefit from roads? Even those who buy goods trucked in from elsewhere? Or use police/ambulance services?
Tame is offline  
#16 Old 10-06-2004, 11:03 AM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

So...only those who actually drive benefit from roads?



Only those who actually drive, cause significant wear and tear on roads.



Quote:
Even those who buy goods trucked in from elsewhere?



Nothing will change in regards to this. Consumers already bear the tax burden of consumer purchases. Businesses don't altruistically swallow property taxes, they pass that expense on to the consumer. When I order something through UPS, I'm paying for a wide variety of business costs including gas tax and property tax. It would also be incorporated into public transit and taxi fees.



Quote:
Or use police/ambulance services?



Police/ambulance services constitute a very small percentage of public road usage.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#17 Old 10-06-2004, 11:22 AM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
And a basic problem that this particular proposal tries to address is that Americans have a habit of making bad economic decisions about transportation because the road and highway system is structured heavily subsidized through a regressive property tax. The end result is that people who travel using public transit pay as much money for roads that they don't use as people who commute 40 miles a day.



By putting the majority of the cost of highways into a per-mile (or per-gallon by proxy) cost rather than a hidden subsidized cost, choices about transportation are better affected by the free market. Heavy highway users no longer get a lateral free ride from light highway users. And certainly, there probably is a compromise level where property taxes pay for the road and sidewalk outside of your front door.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#18 Old 10-06-2004, 11:39 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

Only those who actually drive, cause significant wear and tear on roads.



Nonsense, as many others benefit from those being able to drive. Good roads = more availability of goods, lower costs.



Quote:

Nothing will change in regards to this. Consumers already bear the tax burden of consumer purchases. Businesses don't altruistically swallow property taxes, they pass that expense on to the consumer. When I order something through UPS, I'm paying for a wide variety of business costs including gas tax and property tax. It would also be incorporated into public transit and taxi fees.



Partly true, but it will shift markets more than you understand.



Quote:

Police/ambulance services constitute a very small percentage of public road usage.



But its pretty important that good roads exist when you need 'em, huh?
Tame is offline  
#19 Old 10-06-2004, 11:40 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

And a basic problem that this particular proposal tries to address is that Americans have a habit of making bad economic decisions about transportation because the road and highway system is structured heavily subsidized through a regressive property tax. The end result is that people who travel using public transit pay as much money for roads that they don't use as people who commute 40 miles a day.



By putting the majority of the cost of highways into a per-mile (or per-gallon by proxy) cost rather than a hidden subsidized cost, choices about transportation are better affected by the free market. Heavy highway users no longer get a lateral free ride from light highway users. And certainly, there probably is a compromise level where property taxes pay for the road and sidewalk outside of your front door.





You might actually want to look into the current taxes on gas issued by states before yapping about this. Oh, and how some states/counties allocate the property taxes from personal vehicles.
Tame is offline  
#20 Old 10-06-2004, 12:00 PM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by christy13 View Post

No, no, no. Doesn't the amount of gas you buy indicate the amount of driving you do (depending on fuel efficiency, of course)? Big Brother, no dice.



They're researching ways to replace the taxes generated by fuel sales once alternative fuel vehicles become more common and the oil is gone.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#21 Old 10-06-2004, 12:02 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

They're researching ways to replace the taxes generated by fuel sales once alternative fuel vehicles become more common and the oil is gone.



Raise propert taxes on personal vehicles. Problem solved.
Tame is offline  
#22 Old 10-06-2004, 12:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
SystmDwnGrl2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Sorry, but requiring a GPS device that tracks where you go and what you do is an invasion of privacy.



I have nothing to hide - but I may want to change that some day!





I um....ahh...um... agree... yeah there I said it... I agree.
SystmDwnGrl2 is offline  
#23 Old 10-06-2004, 12:25 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurmudgeon View Post


And it would mean those with fuel-efficient vehicles would pay the same as those with gas-guzzlers.



Hear, hear!



We should be encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, not discouraging them by a per-mile tax.



And if you drive 400 miles in a month, but you get a bill for driving 4,000 miles, how do you dispute it? You might as well give the government a license to pick your pocket.



I also think this scheme tends to favor the rich. Why? Because if I am rich, I probably can afford to buy a nice house/condo/whatever within a few miles of where I work. If I am poor, I might have to work in the city but settle for a house in the far boonies to afford the payments.



Insofar as it treats one mile driven to and from work as equivalent to one mile driven joyriding, it is also unjust.



Another issue that comes up in my mind: what is the government going to do with the money? From what I've read, the govt. already collects substantial sums in a highway "trust fund"--and then does not spend the money to repair highways. Instead, it hoards it, or plays some sort of fiscal games with it--accumulating a nominal fiscal "surplus" in one area that offsets deficits in other areas. Meanwhile, roads and bridges fall into disrepair.



I'm against more obligations imposed on the citizens with no corresponding obligations imposed on the government.
Joe is offline  
#24 Old 10-06-2004, 12:38 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post


But its pretty important that good roads exist when you need 'em, huh?



Good roads will still exist. However, they will be paid for by those who use them.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#25 Old 10-06-2004, 12:47 PM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
Joe - It stated in the article that they're considering a surcharge for vehicles that aren't fuel efficient. Plus we wouldn't see a tax like this until oil is in far shorter supply than it is today. That means the price of gas will be much higer and alternative fuel vehicles will be in more demand (and the price will be lower). You saw how big SUV saled plummeted when gas hit $2 a gallon. So to say that it encourages people to go out and buy big SUV's, I highly doubt it.



Either way I think it would be better because people may think twice about taking unnecessary trips. I know I would.



I don't like the idea of applying a property tax to vehicles, for some reason I think it would have an adverse effect on lower income families.



One thing is for sure, all of the money they're making from oil and gas tax... That's a lot of money and it is going to come from somewhere.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#26 Old 10-06-2004, 01:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 870
Some how I have a picture of the cell phone add where the little kid is told that he has gone over his soccer minutes for the month and how does he want to pay for that.



Gas taxes in Washington state are already so high that I cannot even imagine what the per mile charge would be in order to replace the money. I am told that it is anywhere from just under half the price of a gallon of gas to just over a third of the price of a gallon of gas. But the thing is no one really seems to know just how much it is and every year a few more cents per gallon are tacked on by either Olympia or the other Washington.



I am guessing that the "property tax" that Tame is talking about would be the annual license tag. These used to be quite an expense. Some guy named Tim went to bat to lower that tax to a straight $30 so for now the property tax on cars would not work in my state (hallelujah!)



I do not like the per mile idea. I live in a mountain valley. I have a one-hour commute each way to get to work. There is no public transportation available either from my home or close to my job. My little old car still gets 32 mpg and runs as clean as I can get it to. Most of my neighbors have SUV's and pickups, some which get as little as 8 mpg and they commute about as far as I do. Why should we pay the same amount? They raise much of what they eat. I cannot grow more then basic vegetables and some berries and stone fruit. I consume more transportation costs for vegan food then they do for home grown flesh, dairy, and eggs. Why should I be penalized with the per mile cost for what I eat? I already pay an amazing amount of transportation tax. My road gets little use. It would not see the same attention a high use road would see. Yet there is a lot of winter and flood damage to my road that the school bus must still take children on. How is that fair?



Something needs to be done. The per mile tax is as good of an idea as any other in its unfairness to everyone. As for the GPS issue, I would gladly trade that for all the tracking that is done on my money, all the places my image is recorded, the tracking of who I talk to on the phone, what I watch on satellite TV, where and when I see a doctor, where I go on the internet and what party I vote for. GPS tracking? So what.
Kamila is offline  
#27 Old 10-06-2004, 01:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurmudgeon View Post

Won't someone work out how to remove the GPS receiver? Then removal will be offered to mates by those that know how to do it.



And it would mean those with fuel-efficient vehicles would pay the same as those with gas-guzzlers.

If the unit is sending the miles traveled somewhere, I'm sure it could also detect when it's been removed from a car or tampered with. In any case, when the car gets its annual inspection, I'm sure they would add that unit to the list of things that must be checked, and if it's tampered, well then, fine time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamila View Post

I do not like the per mile idea. I live in a mountain valley. I have a one-hour commute each way to get to work. There is no public transportation available either from my home or close to my job. My little old car still gets 32 mpg and runs as clean as I can get it to. Most of my neighbors have SUV's and pickups, some which get as little as 8 mpg and they commute about as far as I do. Why should we pay the same amount? They raise much of what they eat. I cannot grow more then basic vegetables and some berries and stone fruit. I consume more transportation costs for vegan food then they do for home grown flesh, dairy, and eggs. Why should I be penalized with the per mile cost for what I eat? I already pay an amazing amount of transportation tax. My road gets little use. It would not see the same attention a high use road would see. Yet there is a lot of winter and flood damage to my road that the school bus must still take children on. How is that fair?

You're the exact reason why this should be put into place and why it would work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

I think it's good simply for an environmental reason. If people are taxed per mile they're more likely to think about taking unnecessary trips. I also like the idea that the tax can be adjusted during peak hours and a surcharge added for less fuel-efficient vehicles. I also like that the money goes to the state where the driving is actually done.



One way or another you're going to pay. I'd much rather have a tax based on my usage than have my income, sales, or property taxes jacked up.



I guess I just don't understand the "I don't want the government to know what I'm doing" mentality. I know quite a few people have it. I figure I do nothing wrong - I go to school, go to work, go home, visit family - I have nothing to hide and couldn't really care less. And like I said, if they want to know what you as an individual are doing, they'll find out.

I completely agree, Michael.



If people started getting taxed on each mile of road they travel, well then, this would be the biggest anti-sprawl law ever enacted. Perhaps neighborhoods would come back into fashion! I hope this, or something like this, does indeed come true.
Walter is offline  
#28 Old 10-06-2004, 02:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,211
Tax on fuel is Ok, as I see it. It currently costs 82.5p per litre of petrol, with the vast majority of what you pay going to 11 Downing street. Don't like it? Well swap that mitsubishi shogun for a daewoo matiz, and you'll be paying much less. The economics are quite simple.



Autogas is quite cheap as well. There's one place in blackpool wher eit's about 35p a litre. So you may want to convert your engine.



But as for a bloody GPS device, that's draconian. Even tame agrees that it infinges on civil rights here.
Loki is offline  
#29 Old 10-06-2004, 02:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,211
Oh, asfor the problem with taxes, there are two solutions to the problem of not enough tax revenue. One is michael howard, and the other is tax something else.



So the only viable solution is that we have to tax something else. I say we legalise drugs and tax them. Anyone else agree?
Loki is offline  
#30 Old 10-06-2004, 02:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki View Post

Oh, asfor the problem with taxes, there are two solutions to the problem of not enough tax revenue. One is michael howard, and the other is tax something else.



So the only viable solution is that we have to tax something else. I say we legalise drugs and tax them. Anyone else agree?

Absolutely not. People who do drugs should not subsidize those who use roads.



Taxing people's mileage makes sense because it encourages conservation and subsidizes no one except pedestrians who do little wear on a road.
Walter is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off