Taxing for distance travelled? What!

macreative · Nov 17, 2004

Did anyone see the news yesterday about the new DMV chief wanting to tax us for distance travelled? For example, if you travel 30 miles to work and back versus 2 miles to work and back, you'll pay considerably more money in tax. This new "concept" is going to be a real problem for Hybrid owners because it basically deletes the incentives to buying fuel-efficient vehicles for gas savings - as it says in the article, "the system would remove one incentive to buying new-technology hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, because its owner would pay the same fuel tax as a Hummer owner."

Full Story has been posted below. Please tell me this cannot pass. I hope Arnold can see that this isn't a good idea.

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-me-dmv...0,3180205.story

DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile

New appointee has advocated a levy based on how much and where motorists drive. Idea is gaining support, but privacy advocates worry.

By Robert Salladay
Times Staff Writer

November 16, 2004

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday appointed a new Department of Motor Vehicles director who has advocated taxing motorists for every mile they drive â€” by placing tracking devices in their cars.

The idea would mean a significant overhaul of how California collects taxes to maintain its often-crumbling roads. Under the plan, the state gas tax â€” now 18 cents a gallon â€” would be replaced with a tax on every mile traveled by each car and truck.

The notion has not been endorsed by Schwarzenegger but is gaining acceptance among transportation and budget experts. As Californians drive increasingly more fuel-efficient cars, state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.

Charging people for the miles they drive also worries some owners of hybrid cars, because it could wipe out any gas-tax savings they now enjoy.

Dan Beal, managing director of public policy for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said altering the system would remove one incentive to buying new-technology hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, because its owner would pay the same fuel tax as a Hummer owner.

"You are arguing against people taking risks on technology development," said Beal, warning that some mile-tracking systems could invite fraud more than the reliable tax meters at the pump.

Any change in the state's gasoline tax would have to be approved by the Legislature.

Privacy advocates worry about the government tracking the whereabouts of every car in California. In one scenario â€” currently being tested in Oregon â€” tracking devices send a signal to a GPS satellite following the car, and that information would be used to calculate the tax bill. Other devices send a signal directly from the car to the pump, which calculates the tax based on the odometer reading.

Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which monitors privacy issues, said if the device "can communicate with a satellite and then communicate back with another device on the ground, it could be used for something else. That would be my concern: How are limits placed on how this device could be used?"

Yet some transportation experts say the technology has wider implications. Officials are intrigued by the idea because California could begin taxing people for using specific roads at specific times. To keep people off freeways at peak hours, for example, per-mile fees for city streets could be pegged at a lower rate than the highway. That could prompt people to use alternative routes.

The governor and other top aides are exploring ways to alter our gasoline-driven society: Schwarzenegger wants more hybrid and hydrogen-fueled cars, and his new EPA secretary, Terry Tamminen, is writing a book about ending the use of oil entirely, calling it a "dinosaur."

For the state budget, the trend looks grim. Revenue from the gas and diesel fuel tax â€” about $3.3 billion â€” will have declined 8% between 1998 and 2005, adjusted for inflation, but the amount of miles traveled by cars and trucks on California roads has increased 16%, according to a February report by the legislative analyst. The California Transportation Commission has said the state needs about $100 billion in road and freeway repairs.

The appointment of Joan Borucki, a Democrat and longtime Caltrans official, has placed an advocate for a per-mile transportation tax within the top ranks of the Schwarzenegger administration.

She included the notion in the California Performance Review, a top-to-bottom audit ordered by Schwarzenegger last year. Borucki was the leader on the transportation section and pushed the idea of an odometer-based fee at an August public meeting in Riverside.

The idea has been circulating because more Californians are driving fuel-efficient cars, the review warned. Less gasoline consumed means less money for the state's coffers from the gas tax â€” even though people are driving and damaging roads just as much. "Electric vehicles, fuel-cell vehicles or other future fuels would not be taxed under" the existing per-gallon system, the report said.

The administration said Borucki was not available Monday, but she said in a statement that she wants to transform the DMV "into a customer-friendly, service-oriented unit of our government." Borucki, who was on the California Transportation Commission for two years, still needs state Senate confirmation for the $123,255-a-year job. She started at Caltrans in 1980 and worked her way up to manager of new technology and deputy district director for planning.

"She's devoted, and she's knowledgeable about the state's situation," said Elizabeth Deakin, a policy expert with the UC Transportation Center who has known her for 15 years. "She understands the state's concerns about wanting good service, and she understands technology."

In Orange and San Diego counties, some freeways are using what is called "congestion pricing" â€” vehicles pay to use certain lanes at peak hours. And two similar systems are being tested in Oregon.

Around Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council is placing global positioning devices in 500 cars to monitor where they drive â€” and then calculating a usage fee based on the roads they use and the times they drive. In Eugene, Ore., test cars are being outfitted with tracking devices that link up with special gas pumps around the area.

Currently, cars with high fuel efficiency and large trucks don't generate enough revenue from fuel taxes to pay for the burden they place on roads, said Randall Pozdena, managing director of ECONorthwest, an economic consulting firm. A large truck, he said, can do as much damage on a city street as 10,000 cars, but it still pays the same amount of per-gallon gasoline tax, assuming the gas was purchased in California in the first place.

Drivers "can start allocating how much time they spend on each type of street," said Andrew Poat, a former Caltrans official who works for the city of San Diego. It could get even more detailed: Large trucks could be charged higher fees for using residential streets rather than more fortified freeways.

"It's just like water. We're trying to get water and energy meters to tell you what time of day you use energy. You use energy at peak hours on a really hot day, you pay more for thatâ€¦. We need to start sending those price signals to users."

Still, privacy advocates worry about "usage creep" â€” like how the driver's license has evolved into official identification for nearly everyone. The information collected about mileage potentially could be subpoenaed in a court case or used to track someone without their knowledge, they fear.

But Pozdena and Deakin, the transportation experts, said most people don't care about this issue as much as privacy advocates, especially when presented with the possibility that as much as 25% of the road could be used by hybrids in the future. Drivers of non-hybrid cars have said it's unfair to pay the larger burden of gasoline taxes, they said.

"While some people are concerned about civil liberties, most people are not," Deakin said. "One of the things we found from focus groups and surveys is that most people said if the government wanted to track you, they have other ways to do it."

Copyright Â© 2004, The Los Angeles Times

NiMHpwr · Nov 17, 2004

Something that I did not see addressed in this article is what about all the out of state vehicles that come into California. There is no way for this tax to charge them for wearing out the roads. I think a better approach for this type of tax if it is not already thought of is to charge different rates for vehicle wieght because it is obvious that a 1.5 ton Prius will cause less damage than a 3.75 ton Hummer H1. Also the Prius is still going to make less trip to the pump than the Hummer. Third to make this tax even more efficient it to place part of the burden on tires. I think huge off-road tires probably cause more damage to roads than a small passenger tire.

There are possibly even some benefits to placing gps traking in all cars. For one car theft may be reduced or maybe even eradicated, I don't know And as the article states funding will go to the roads travelled on the most.

On the other hand how much is it going to cost to implement a system like this and who is going to pay for it.

I would have to say that at first I was totally opposed but after giving it a little thought it might actually work.

Justin

bruceha_2000 · Nov 17, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NiMHpwr\";p=\"51130)</div>

And as the article states funding will go to the roads travelled on the most. [/b]
Click to expand...

You need any bridges? I have several for sale, in many states. ;-) The state of VT routinely raids the transportation fund to cover shortfalls in the general fund. I suspect it is no different in other states.

priusham · Nov 17, 2004

I'm glad I rescued my Prius from the People's Republic of California.

Oh wait! dammit... I live in a blue state, too!

People are taxed fairly right now when it's added to fuel costs as gasoline consumption and the distances you chose to travel are based upon your own free will.

As folks like us cut tax revenues buy purchasing fuel efficient cars, the politicians will have to come up with a new way to screw us.

KMO · Nov 17, 2004

No they don't. If less fuel is being sold, to restore revenues all they need to do is increase fuel duty.

There you go, problem solved. My consultation fee for this solution is a mere $250,000. PayPal accepted.

Can we assume that someone in the local government has a financial interest in a GPS tracking equipment company?

skruse · Nov 17, 2004

You cannot solve a problem (air quality, traffic congestion, transportation, traffic noise, oil use, etc.) using the same process that caused the problem in the first place.

One: visit www.rmi.org, Rocky Mountain Institute and view the slide program on "Winning the Oil Endgame."

Two: think comprehensive and long-term (whole state) with 34+ million people and climatic constraints and severe air quality limitations.

Three: think constructive alternatives for moving goods, services and people (high speed rail, maglev rail, light rail, bicycles, walking, parking, landscaping, living close to work, energy efficiency in housing, schools, business and lighting).

It is absurd to propose a tax on distance traveled - people will find ways to cheat the system (even with GPS), it feels as a big brother intrusion and it is a disincentive for energy efficiency in all aspects of our lives.

efusco · Nov 17, 2004

This is just plain insane. California led the world in pollution control and emissions control and promotion of fuel efficient and air friendly vehicles.

Now they're not seeing as much gas tax revenue b/c of their very successful program and they want to punish the very folks who've aided the effort!! Unbelievable.

As stated above, if revenues are down you increase the gas tax, those with fuel inefficient vehicles pay more and those with fuel efficient vehicles pay less. The environmental effort continues, fuel consumption continues to decline, everyone (except those driving gas guzzlers--and who cares about them) is happy.

It's just inconcievable to me that this idea ever escaped the lips of a thinking human being.

macreative · Nov 17, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco\";p=\"51155)</div>

This is just plain insane. Â California led the world in pollution control and emissions control and promotion of fuel efficient and air friendly vehicles.

Now they're not seeing as much gas tax revenue b/c of their very successful program and they want to punish the very folks who've aided the effort!! Â Unbelievable.

As stated above, if revenues are down you increase the gas tax, those with fuel inefficient vehicles pay more and those with fuel efficient vehicles pay less. Â The environmental effort continues, fuel consumption continues to decline, everyone (except those driving gas guzzlers--and who cares about them) is happy.

It's just inconcievable to me that this idea ever escaped the lips of a thinking human being.[/b]
Click to expand...

AMEN!!!

priusham · Nov 17, 2004

"It's just inconcievable to me that this idea ever escaped the lips of a thinking human being."

You've never worked in the public sector?

jchu · Nov 17, 2004

Not confined to the public sector. The hospital where I work proposed sending the night shift nursing assistants home in the middle of the night for 4 hours to save some money. Shift proposal was a 7pm to 7am shift with 4 hours off from 11pm to 3 am!!! (3 day work week, hourly wage)

prius04 · Nov 17, 2004

For most common people, taxation hurts. It affects the size of the house they can afford, the car they can buy, and how well they live their lives.

Through all of human history paying taxes was something commoners did. The elite, if taxed at all, never bore more than a trivial amount, at least as a function of it's affect on their lifestyle. (The dollar amount might have been high, but the actual affect on their lives was miniscule, at least in comparison to "commoners".)

Starting in 1913, the USA began an experiment never before seen in human history. Progressive taxation on income and wealth. The result, for the first time in world history, taxes actually started to hurt rich people like they always hurt commoners. From the mid 50's until RR, the top tax rate was over 70%. And what happened? The USA thrived!! RR lowered it, and then GW lowered it again, and the American engine has never been quite what it was in the 50's to 70's.

Now there is talk of flat taxes, and talk of taxes that shifts taxation to economy cars over behemoths, like this idea in California.

So I ask all of you why are you all so surprised when a government official wants to shift taxes to "commoners" and away from the wealthier? 60 million Americans just voted in a government that has been doing this for 3 years, and wants to accelerate the process.

What Joan Borucki wants to do now in California has been going on for the last 25 years. Make no mistake about it, "tax reform" over the last 30 years has been a euphamism for tax "shifting" back to the working classes like it was through all of world history.

This is just more of the same.

karmavore · Nov 17, 2004

I like I only use this board to dissent, so I promise my next post after this one will be supportive and positive. Until then...

The plan proposed here is not only a good one, but, in some form, inevitable. In fact, it shows the kind of well-reasoned forethought that I'm not used to seeing in politicians. I guess this is what happens when coffers are threatened.

We're not going to be travelling on oil power, or at least as inefficient oil power, forever. The money that goes to roadways, which acts as a huge subsidy for the automotive and oil industries, will need to come from somewhere, and it will be just as huge a subsidy for the hydrogen industry, when it arrives. I admire a system that encourages adoption of energy efficient technologies, but I understand that these money-saving incentive privileges will last only as long as the technology is uncommon and needs to be incentivized. Honestly, I wouldn't feel that I have the right to avoid roadway taxes altogether for eternity, just if I happened to be driving, say, a hydrogen fuel-cell car. Be pleased you got a good deal on gas as long as you can -- this, too, shall pass.

So look at the (only-discussed-at-this-point) taxation shift as a positive! It's yet another sign that hybrids are mainstreaming, as more and more people jump on board. Isn't that what we want?

Death and taxes, though not necessarily in that order.

Brad

Tempus · Nov 17, 2004

Vehicle Weight is what eats roads.

If the issue is wear and tear on roads, a better solution might be to scale registration fees to Vehicle Weight.

A nickle a pound surcharge over 3,000 pounds for passenger (non-commercial) vehicles?

bruceha_2000 · Nov 17, 2004

Taken out of context, this is quite funny! :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(karmavore\";p=\"51193)</div>

Be pleased you got a good deal on gas as long as you can -- this, too, shall pass.[/b]
Click to expand...

bruceha_2000 · Nov 17, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco\";p=\"51155)</div>

Now they're not seeing as much gas tax revenue b/c of their very successful program and they want to punish the very folks who've aided the effort!! Â Unbelievable.[/b]
Click to expand...

My aunt lives in Mill Valley. MarinJohn may remember this: Some years back they had a really bad drought and the water district asked everyone to conserve as much as possible. People turned off the water while they brushed their teeth, didn't wash their cars, even started taking short baths instead of showers so they could use the water for the garden. They were very successful in reducing water use, long term as not wasting became a habit. But the water rates went up. Why? Because they weren't covering the admin and delivery costs with the greatly reduced usage.

The fact is it takes x dollars to maintain the roads and build new ones. If that money comes exclusively from fuel taxes and less fuel is used, they have a deficit. Some method of increasing revenue is needed.

I'm not saying a complicated mileage tracking system is the answer, but they will have to do something if less gas is sold.

I doubt there are enough hybrids on the roads in CA to cause a noticable decline in gas taxes. Maybe most everyone is driving a little smarter at $2/gallon.

Gurmail · Nov 17, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusham\";p=\"51147)</div>

I'm glad I rescued my Prius from the People's Republic of California.

Oh wait! Â dammit... I live in a blue state, too!

People are taxed fairly right now when it's added to fuel costs as gasoline consumption and the distances you chose to travel are based upon your own free will. Â

As folks like us cut tax revenues buy purchasing fuel efficient cars, the politicians will have to come up with a new way to screw us.[/b]
Click to expand...

Please don't attack communism/socialism needlessly. This has nothing to do with it. Everything bad isn't socialist or communist.

IsrAmeriPrius · Nov 17, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"51236)</div>

Maybe most everyone is driving a little smarter at $2/gallon.[/b]
Click to expand...

$2.00 a gallon. We should be so lucky. In the Los Angeles area the cheapest regular grade gas is at just over $2.20 a gallon at Costco. Elsewhere it is near $2.30. Premium is around $2.50.

Sufferin' Prius Envy · Nov 18, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(macreative\";p=\"51106)</div>

The idea would mean a significant overhaul of how California collects taxes to maintain its often-crumbling roads. . . state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.[/b]
Click to expand...

Utter BULL!!!!

In March 2002 Californians passed Prop. 42 by 69.1% - which simply states that existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/state/prop/42/

The Prop. 42 money has never actually gone to transportation, having been borrowed back by Davis and Schwarzenegger each year since the measure passed.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insid...ves/001528.html

California stands to earn $358 million more from sales taxes on gas in 2004 than it did the year before, according to the Board of Equalization.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctime...10134904.htm?1c

Granted, California is in a budget mess, but trying to blame lack of gas tax for the condition of the roads, which IMHO are not that bad, is really lame . . . and total B.S. to try to blame Hybrids! LIES, LIES!!!!

DaveG · Nov 18, 2004

Well, not to mention that a GPS system like they're talking about is pretty unworkable.

Heck, a layer of tinfoil blocks a GPS receiver nicely. The only thing they "might" be able to do is tie it into the odometer so they can detect if you've been driving unusual distances with the GPS shielded. But then people will just unhook their odometer too and wire up a spare.

Of course, one has to wonder if the government would be paying hundreds of dollars for each car to install these devices.

Dave

karmavore · Nov 18, 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"51233)</div>

Taken out of context, this is quite funny! Â :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(karmavore\";p=\"51193)
Click to expand...

Be pleased you got a good deal on gas as long as you can -- this, too, shall pass.[/b]
Click to expand...

[/b][/quote]

Oh, dear... Let's leave this behind us, shall we?

Taxing for distance travelled? What!

macreative New Member

NiMHpwr New Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

priusham New Member

KMO Senior Member

skruse Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

macreative New Member

priusham New Member

jchu New Member

prius04 New Member

karmavore New Member

Tempus Senior Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

Gurmail Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

DaveG Member

karmavore New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Taxing for distance travelled? What!

macreative New Member

NiMHpwr New Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

priusham New Member

KMO Senior Member

skruse Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

macreative New Member

priusham New Member

jchu New Member

prius04 New Member

karmavore New Member

Tempus Senior Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

bruceha_2000 Senior Member

Gurmail Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

DaveG Member

karmavore New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member