tax per mile

Call me naive but I still have faith in the government.

A couple years ago California was in a drought. The water utility asked its residents to voluntary cut its usage otherwise they will have to institute mandatory conservation measures. The outcome was that we cut usage down so severely that the water district didn't have enough funding to pay their bills. They had to increase water rates. While it is a smack in the face to us conserving water, it is still a simple effective solution.

I want my local government talk through all the possible ways to fix the problem. That way they will arrive at the best solution. It may be easy for me to see that setting up a system to track miles traveled is a complex, costly, privacy invading solution. But even though raising taxes is the clear answer, it's political suicide.

 

There has been sales tax increases in California to pay for roads. We now have among the highest sales tax rate in the nation. Our state income tax rate is among the highest. What sane person would welcome more taxes. Theres plenty of money there to run the show if they cut back on unnecessary expenses.

Cut taxes fosters investment. I rather invest my money than hand it to the gov.

 

I agree. I'm sad to say that the Golden State has become tarnished by the tax and spend actions of short-sighted politicians.

 

I like the toll road option, but the concept of tolling "each and every road" is not realistic. The opening issue was not about the need for revenue since we know roads need maintenance. The issue was about invasive and destructive taxing approaches.

 

And in the long run this is still cheaper -- both monetarily and environmentally -- than developing additional water sources.

 

I think the measure would have multiple terms. The roadbed damage term might be load per axle to the fourth power. The aging / weathering / congestion term would likely be a constant per vehicle, or possibly a linear function of vehicle weight and/or length.

Tolling based solely on the second or fourth power of weight doesn't account for congestion and vehicles-per-hour capacity needs. The weight damage from ordinary cars and SUVs is essentially zero compared to those 80,000 pound trucks. But all those heavy trucks would fit into a single lane. It is those pesky lightweight cars that drive the need for the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth lanes.

 

But that is a USE tax. As far as I am concerned it is far more invasive than a usage tax based solely on the miles driven. Taxing electricity directly would impact EVERYONE who turned on a light, or otherwise used electricity.

However, one problem with these use taxes, or gas taxes in many states (NY is one) is that the revenues collected DO NOT GO DIRECTLY TO ROAD MAINTENANCE. Instead they go to general revenues and only a small portion goes towards road maintenance. This has been a complaint of the AAA for years.

 

(Humor) All the gas I buy for mowing lawns taxes me for road use, but yet I'm not using it for vehicles. Should I get a refund from the government?(Humor over)

As far as taxing electricity, my tax rate for electrical power is greater than the tax rate for gas. That might also apply to you. What are those power bill revenues used for presently? It's certainly not to build, support, or maintain power distribution infrastructure. So I would contend that we already have a problem with present power taxes. Same is also true with phone taxes. The list of taxes and fees is quite long.

The bottom line is that governments love to claim that more revenue is needed to pay for "infrastructure", but the real need is to pay for bigger government. The opening post was a good example of this point. It's not a real problem, but sure is presented as a problem so a completely new revenue source can be created.

Concur. Broken government ensures broken roads regardless of revenue.

 

I agree!! What about bicycles, you see them on the road all the time; some areas even have bicycle lanes. Do they PAY any taxes?

 

Note it is a proposal by a Tea Party GOP state rep with some attaboys from the local oil, auto and road construction lobbyists. Their goal is not raising revenue as there are so few electric cars as to make any minuscule revenues raised not worth the massive cost of collection. These same groups oppose high mpg standards, reduced pollution, mass transit and promotion of non-fossil fuel cars, trucks and energy production.

Doubtful they will get anywhere as as they are a distinct minority.

 

If a tax takes away the savings for higher fuel efficiency which offsets the cost of using more expensive technology - it will hurt hybrids and electric car sales and push automakers back to using fossil fuels based cars. Good for the oil industry bad for the car industry. Economically , such a tax makes the economy less efficient - because it penalizes fuel efficiency and thus will discourage using less energy to do more work. Because hybrids and electrical vehicles make only a small percentage of the vehicles in the USA (or Oregon) , such a taxing proposal focuses on a relatively small tax base. Beyond taxis, air port shuttles, and mass transit bus which use hybrid tech, hi mileage hybrid sub population would not likely be large enough to generate a significant amount of tax revenue to fund today's expensive road construction projects.

Note that it is possible to make conventional gas vehicles with high fuel efficiency(>= 80 mpg) but the vehicles must be very light like the Edison2 VLC - which could get high FE and evade such a taxing system.

IMHO, given the need to import oil and more importantly the economic risk and damage caused by oil speculation such a tax proposal is foolishly short sighted at best and worst would set back the regional economy.

My guess is that this proposal is a strawman - a tax maker puts out a clearly bad tax increase proposal before introduce a less desirable tax increase proposal - hoping the ugly idea makes the less ugly idea more votable. Use the ugly idea to hit home that there is a need and give the other lawmakers something to point out that they did the lesser of two evils - if they vote for the less than ugly idea, e.g. increasing gasoline and diesel fuel taxes OR increasing income taxes.

 

Here's what's most fair (and thus it'll never happen). Tax tires. Big ol' truck tires on an 18 wheeler wear down roads the most due to heavy weights. These tires suffer the most wear due to the loads they carry and thus get replaced most frequently. Light cars/tires cause the smallest road wear. But if you drive like an idiot, you can even wear down a small/light econo car's tires extra quick. Go ahead ... do a nice long burn out ... and thanks for the road tax you'd pay, as you're prematurely buying new tires. Drive more gentle, as though you have no brakes, and you be surprised how long those tread will last. Tax the tires. But like I said ... it won't happen ... any more than charging more for tires for car insurance (effectively forcing everyone to have auto insurance) End of story.
.

 

This is a deadly solution.

The increased purchase price would cause many drivers to squeeze more life out of aging tires as their worn treads degrade rain and winter traction. This will lead to significantly more traffic deaths and disabling injuries.

For safety and public health, incentives should encourage drivers to buy fresh tires more frequently, not less.

 

Correct, just part of another disinformation campaign:

The original source is more of a "newsletter" from a political hack group funded by the "Franklin Center." This "tax the Prius" fits the fantasy of the right-wing nuts who see Prius owners as Liberals . . . replacing the 'Volvo' used in the anti-Dean campaign in 2004.

The original posting would be more appropriate and fit the profile of "Fred's House of Politics" than anything one might call news.

Bob Wilson

 

NJ has a tire tax of $1.50 per tire, so you pay $7.50 per car. I pointed out to the dealer that they charged me for the spare and the car doesn't have one.

 

The toll concept is best. In a perfect world, your vehicle would be charged for road use based on its size and weight, and the amount you drive, but also based on where you drive and the time you drive. You would pay the highest road use premium for driving a large, heavy vehicle on a crowded street during rush hours. This toll-based structure would not only encourage lighter, smaller vehicles but provide an incentive to keep people off the busier streets at the busiest times.

 

The problem is those states that have the most toll roads don't really do as good a job as those that don't try to be fair. My state is starting to follow the bad example and building toll roads instead of raising gas taxes, making the new roads less efficient in moving traffic from high density areas. The toll road concept is absolutely backwards.

You can raise registration fees. You can raise gas taxes. Its not bad to have registration fees based on pollution or weight or miles traveled found at inspection.

Going to toll roads and/or gps tracking just increases the waste and inefficiency of it all. Whatever happened to the government providing a public good, roads, and caring more about getting it done then fairness. In these attempts to be more fair, its going to cost everyone something. There noramally is a PAC funding this false fairness argument. I don't think its actually fair to force someone that is working class to buy a device to have the government track them. Its definitely not fair to create roads that if you have more money, you get to avoid traffic, but if you don't you sit in it.

 

and by that same, "oh, the price is too expensive" logic, one would not get their oil changed ... their wipers changed ... one would not go in for yearly medical checkups, or have their kids' teeth checked ... etc. No ... you continue to pay the piper because you don't want to pay the consequences of not paying the piper. Every once in a great while you see some knucklehead driving with the nylon ply showing thru ... but gee maybe we should subsidize EVERY thing so that the mentally marginal can carry on? Good luck with that.

Taxing EV / PHEV's to make up for less gas tax, dodges the real issue ... that our WAY too low priced / subsidized gas price is the REASON our roads get worn out and it's the reason folks don't switch to high speed rail (investment) public transportation / EV's PHEV's alternatives. What's going to make people stop (fuel) waste? by making it too expensive to waste. I know ... poorer people will be hardest hit ... businesses using lots of fuel will be hit ... folks throwing quads into the toy hauler and pulling the 5th wheel trailer out to the river will be hit. Goods being transported will be hit. somehow, European & Asian countries carry on with fuel set at appropriate prices ... but not here, not us.

Tax fuel efficient car? Gee that's a GREAT idea ... according to fuzzy, higher prices make folks avoid those things. Using more fuel creates higher medical costs from exhaust/respiratory issues ... using more fuel keeps our military abroad protecting the HUGE percentage we import from countries that hate us, because we're over there in the first place. What nice person backward logic. don't get me started.
.

 

Nearly all those things you mention have little impact on the life and health of other people. And I'm not talking about tires with ply showing through. Even at 4/32nds of remaining tread, foul weather traction of comman AS tires is already seriously compromised.

A tire tax to pay for the road system isn't going to cost just a few dollars per tire. It is going to be over $500 per set.

A separate topic: where does this come from? A yearly checkup for healthy adult males fell off the official recommendation lists decades ago. It is now starting to drop of the lists for healthy adult females too. Longer intervals are fine.

 

So what ... if all your road taxes are rolled into tires (instead of the pump) it's the same use ... AND it includes fuel efficient autos as well. And as for you fear about a wave of people waiting to buy new tires? Many states have road checks for 'safety' issues. That's how CA used to catch a bunch if drunks, in addition to worn brakes, tires turn signals etc. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. we don't stop enforcing drunk laws just because it's tough.