Hers is a new wrinkle on taking our money and it may start in California. Unhappy with a loss of revenue from fuel efficient cars CA is now considering a tax by the MILE DRIVEN to ensure they get you even if you just spent big bucks for the Hybrid vehicle.

Questions for the debate:

1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax? Are you angry about this idea?

2. Do you think all the “gas tax” money goes to roads? Why?

3. Who will this modified tax hurt the most? Will it go national from CA?

This is just flat out disturbing.

1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax? Are you angry about this idea?

Not fair at all. And extremely angry if this idea is even close to becoming a real tax or law.

I recently was having a discussion with somebody here in PM regarding the errosions of personal freedoms and one thing she mentioned to was unreasonable taxation ( on the environment and how many miles we drive everyday as an example). Sent a chill down my spine as this was just said to me yesterday.

Gee, welcome to the world of the commercial carrier. Commercial carriers have been paying taxes based on miles driven for at least a 15 years, if not longer. (I say 15 years, because in 1993 I was working on a program dealing with this...)

There is some sense ot this, but on a national level, this would be unworkable for the average citizen. At the state level, a "use fee" could simply be collected when the registration is renewed based on the miles driven in the last year. I would support such a notion, if and only if the gas tax was dropped. This is kinda like the same issue with a national sales tax and the income tax.

This quote, from the linked article, says it all for me.



I would also add the fact that the gizmo that is going to keep track of your exact milage is going to cost money, will probably break down frequently, and that hackers will probably be able to mess with it.


1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax?

Nope. Very bad idea. Anything that encourages people to use fuel efficient vehicles is a good idea.

Are you angry about this idea?

Angry is too strong a word. I'd just say it's not a good idea.

2. Do you think all the “gas tax” money goes to roads? Why?

Well, we all know that there are countless ways to manipulate tax income to pay for whatever the government wants to pay for. I'm sure that not all lottery money goes to education, and so on.

3. Who will this modified tax hurt the most?

Folks who have to drive a long distance to work. Maybe this might encourage carpooling and such, but then we come back to the same problem; not enough taxes coming in.

I certainly agree that road maintenance is an important function of government, and has to be paid for. (I once saw a detailed chart of US government expenses, and the largest single chunk, besides the military, was for transportation.) There are a lot of ways to do this; gas taxes, tolls, and so on.

As Bikerdad has helpfully pointed out, a mileage tax already exists for commercial carriers. This might make such a tax seem reasonable for all vehicles on the road. However, one could also argue that the income made by commercial carriers is roughly proportional to the distance they drive, so it's really sort of an income tax. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to separate out commercial and non-commercial driving for other vehicles.

Will it go national from CA?

I believe the article actually says that Oregon is experimenting with it, and that California has rejected it as a bad idea.



Note how high-tech the Oregon system is. This has got to cost a bundle and be subject to failure. And imagine how it would feel to pull up to the pump and not know how much your gas is going to cost before you start pumping!

I think this idea is dead in the water; or has four flat tires, if you prefer.

I have mixed feelings about this. For starters, the tax doesn't punish fuel-efficient vehicle owners. It punishes everyone, and in the grand scheme of things makes sense. Providing incentives to promote moral behaviour is always a risky proposition, and this sort of system would remove an incentive... but at the same time if dollars and cents are the only things that can promote good environmental behaviour, does it become worthwhile despite the philosophical ambiguities of that approach?

1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax? Are you angry about this idea?
The tax burden for driving just went up. IThis is probably the only way to pull people back from 25k+ a year driving habits. There is no selective punishment to any one particular group. I am not angered because taxing everyone collectively acknowledges a serious revenue shortfall and only through collective taxation can a crumbling infrastructure be addressed. At least this way no one is being singled out.

2. Do you think all the "gas tax" money goes to roads? Why?
I've looked at the breakdown on gas taxes before. The largest groups are always the state and federal taxes. Gas taxes are notorious "slush funds" for federalism and something I've protested against for years. The only way out of this debacle is to inform the public via detailed gas receipts and to limit state jurisdiction from tacking on non-road related expenses. A good follow up book is Oil on the Brain which traces the oil backwards from the station. It brings current refining, supply, and distribution challenges into the equation as well. This is part of the road tax yet remains hidden from the average consumer.

3. Who will this modified tax hurt the most?
This will hurt the 90 minute commuter of suburbia and places like texas which have costly highway systems. Time to move back to a one car family again.

Will it go national from CA?
Absolutely. I predicted this several years ago. The public utilities and energy infrastructure have been so gutted from shifting taxation that there will be no give room when stuff starts to break. Problem is all the pork that has set in over the years is unlikley to move over and the blame will be placed rather unfairly on the oil companies. The consumer needs to understand the are gross utility failures looming from refining, to aging distribution pipes to trucking and roads which all draw from one gas tax. Some states will use this as a generic slush fund and cash cow. The impetus is to institute a national transparency approach to inform drivers that while prices may rise, corruptive embezzlement will not.

Correct it punishes everyone but the folks who could be really angry are the folks who purchased the hybrids and justified the $3,000 or so extra cost by calculating the savings in fuel expense. This law would hurt that calculation and IMO hurt hybrid car sales, which is “good” environmental behavior.
Overall this is not about “moral behavior” – it is all about TAX $$$$. The states, addicted to the revenue are determined to keep the same level of funds coming in and this is the scheme to do that.
I would be less angry if I thought the money was needed for the “roads and bridges” but in most states the money is only partially used for this purpose. The balance goes in the “general fund” and gets spent as the State Legislature pleases. Meanwhile we sit in traffic jams and drive on poor roads and un safe bridges.

The operable phrase here is “no good deed goes unpunished”

A tax on miles driven, besides the inefficiency of collection, is poor public policy for other reasons, particularly in a world threatened by global warming. Ideally, we should tax the negative externalitives of behavior in order to internalize their cost into the overall prices consummers pay. Driving has a number of negative externalities. Congestion and wear and tear on the highway infrastructure are among them but not the main ones. Far more important are the release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that cause health or other damage. A tax on miles driven does increase the cost of all of these externalities but lowers the existing incentive to buy efficient vehicles. This is critical because the marginal cost of driving is comparitively small in comparison to the original cost of an automobile and once the decision is made to buy a gas guzzler the consumer is locked in for several years.

Personally, I would favor a carbon tax on the non-rewable carbon content of fuel (and other energy sources) that starts out low but is steeply graduated over time. In the case of fuel, some of this could go to roads and mass transit alternatives to cars. The balance should be refunded to tax payers through the income tax system on a per capita basis. Such a tax would give clear price signals to buy efficient vehicles or seek alternatives to driving.

I generally agree but don’t like “carbon taxes” of any kind. Let’s subsidize hybrids and very fuel efficient cars, houses appliance etc. And if you think any politician (especially democrats) is going to “refund” a tax on a per capita on any other basis you are dreaming.

We are taxed to death on gas as it is.
The reason for this new tax is for funding roads and road repairs?
How dare they?
If this were to happen, then why the heck do we have so many toll roads in Illinois, which were supposed to be stopped many years ago and that hasn't happened.
Plus if you don't have a toll pass you pay double for a toll.
May 15th I have heard is a boycott for buying gas here in Illinois.
We have had them here before but I can't see how that is a plus. Not enough people have parcipated and it doesn't mean a damn thing as far as I an concerned.
What has happened to "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"?

These are state Taxes so watch for them in your state and get people angry about them if they even discuss this stupid idea. If states pick this up you can be sure the Federal Government will too. And in the State your Representatives vote for this so you are “represented”. It is up to all of us to let our reps know how we feel about this and tolls that never end.

And don’t feel too bad about the toll roads that keep collecting forever. It is common practice. We have the same issue here in Mass. Our last (republican) governor worked to get the toll dropped on the western part of the Mass. Pike that had been paid for 30 years ago. He had to fire the head of the Turnpike Authority to even get them to vote on it. Finally he got it done and it was ready to go into law when he left office. Our new governor (a Democrat) stopped it his first week in office! His reason – we might need the money (for the general fund).

This quite simply a double taxation issue. If you drive farther you must use more gas, whatever portion of the taxes you pay on the gas is proportionally higher. By using more gas, you're already paying for more usage of the roads. I'll accept one or the other, either a sales tax or a milage tax, but not both. What really drives me INSANE is when they call these thing "useage fees" or whatever term du jour suits them. When people start paying school taxes or property taxes (or however your community funds public education) based on how many kids they have in school COUPLED with the elimination of child tax credits and deductions for dependant children then I'll be willing to embrace an overall useage based taxation system. The current system of us paying a tax which is supposed to cover the costs of government provided services and then having to pay an additional useage tax on top of that is just plain bull.

I believe that are contemplating taking away the sales tax and substituting this tax. Their problem is that they have encouraged people to buy fuel efficient cars and as they have done that the state (and federal) tax revenues will fall. This is true even if everyone drives the same number of miles. The “trick” here is to keep the revenue stream constant (or growing) and the way to do that is make the “tax” dependant on miles driven (which has not changed much).

It is a real screw job for buyers of hybrids and people who make a living driving. And it is a net disincentive to buyers of more fuel efficient cars. Show you they really care more about the $$$$$ than using less oil and pollution.

1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax? Are you angry about this idea? High mileage cars are lighter, and cause less wear and tear on the roads to begin with. So this reasoning doesn't fly. It's just a money grab. They see revenue going down, and are looking for ways to increase it, in true bureaucratic fashion.

2. Do you think all the “gas tax” money goes to roads? Why?

Social Security Trust Fund. 'Nuf said.

3. Who will this modified tax hurt the most? Will it go national from CA?

Not sure. California is generally a leader in these areas, but the rest of the country doesn't always follow.

While I do not believe this is a good idea because the government should be encouraging fuel efficient vehicles, and one way to do that is to tax per gallon. However I would like to bring up that just because the tax changes to per mile doesn't completely cut off the incentive for a more fuel efficient vehicle unless gas companies charged you a price per mile as well. It would still be cheaper to drive 500 miles at 40/mpg opposed to 30/mpg as long as the gas itself is charged per gallon outside of the tax.

Tolls roads. Traditional, work well and have been automated.

It may be “cheaper” but would not cover the extra “cost” of a hybrid as opposed to a standard fuel efficient vehicle. The Honda Accord “hybrid” cost more and the batteries have to be replaced after 5 years for $3,000. The numbers are hard to justify as is and will not work at all if the tax on gas, often 1/3 the price per gallon is applied by miles driven.

Clearly this is all about getting our $$$ and has nothing to do with the environment.

I may shock some people with this response, but please read it all before shooting the messenger...

1. Do you feel it is fair that consumers should be punished for using less fuel with this tax? Are you angry about this idea?

I favor a "per mile" tax over a "per gallon" tax. The states provide public avenues of transportation (often referred to as roads and highways) and the fairest way to assess that tax is on a usage basis. The gas tax is allegedly for funding road construction and maintenance. Per gallon taxes do not fairly distribute the costs associated with having roads.

The mechanism for collecting a per mile tax is already in place. Consumer advocacy groups have long ago assured us of the difficulty in tampering with odometers. I think a projected "per mile" tax could fairly easily be incorporated into the vehicle registration process that all vehicles go through every year (or every other year) now.

2. Do you think all the “gas tax” money goes to roads? Why?

According to this site, 80% (15.44 cents per gallon) of federal gas taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund. 20% (2.86 cents per gallon) of them go into the Mass Transit Account. It seems that the General Expenses has been dipping into these funds, however.

In Ohio, where I live, the State must use 100% of gas taxes and vehicle registraton revenues on "highway purposes", which has been re-affirmed to not include such things as insurance premiums for county engineers. Link to case. Other states may have (and I'm sure do have) other standards.

3. Who will this modified tax hurt the most? Will it go national from CA?

It will hurt those who drive more, obviously. They use the roads more and therefore should shoulder more of the tax burden for constructing and maintaining those roads.

Those that benefit are those that drive less. Having a fuel efficient car and not driving it as much (a worthy goal, but not a legitimate government function or aim) will save the driver the most.

Explain to me how a per gallon tax doesn't hurt those who drive more?

Per Gallon hurts those that drive more and the government should encourage people to buy cars that are more fuel effecient. While it may be "fair" to tax those that use the roads more often it would also be irresponsible to remove incentives that encourage better enviromental practices. The per gallon tax already burdens those that drive more, and if they buy a more fuel effecient car to offset the burden then that should not be a pursuit that we should try to tax more to "makeup" for it at this point in time.

This is not the case in many states including mine (Mass). In many states the money pours into the “general fund” and then the roads may get some if the legislature says its ok. Thus this tax would just guarantee revenue without a guarantee that the “roads and bridges” actually get the money.

If/when states sign up to using 100% of the money for roads and mass transit I may change my mind.

I can't explain something to you when I said the exact opposite. It doesn't hurt them, it puts the burden on those that use the resource the most.

Your second paragraph indicates to me that it is more important to you that the government encourage increased fuel efficiency versus charging a fair usage tax. Fine, make your choice of encouraging fuel efficiency a top priority indicates to me that you'd agree with John Kerry's 50 cent a gallon gas tax. Economics is a powerful incentive. Increasing gas costs will certainly decrease demand for gas (i.e. people will drive less).

However, the gas tax (at least on the federal level) is not there as a behavioral tool. It is there to provide money for infrastructure. As such, those that use the infrastructure should be the ones to pay for the infrastructure. If you disagree, why not just bump up the income tax to pay for more roads? Why use a gas tax at all?

In the past, the measuring stick was gallons of gas used. But now we have a better metric: miles driven. And it is miles driven that puts wear and tear on the road and indicates who is using the roads. Putting carbon into the air is a completely separate issue.

Actually a better measure if you want to put the cost of wear on roads in line with a tax is weight. Clearly the most damage done to roads is done by heavy trucks and the tax would get this if it was based on miles driven only. Some roads where lots of trucks drive are grooved by them. But heavy personal vehicles also do more damage and their hybrid versions will use less gas then formerly.

A better measure would combine weight per axle and miles driven. Trucks do pay higher road use taxes but the question is – do they pay enough?

The "miles driven" tax is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the vehicle's axle loading would have to be incorporated into the taxation rate. Charging a 450 lb motorcycle the same mileage tax as a 6,000 lb truck does not accurately reflect their relative impact on the infrastructure. However, this is a fairly simple issue to address. The second, and much more challenging issue, is interstate travel.

States that have significant interstate and trans-state travel would have no way of recouping the cost generated by all them outta-state folks making woollyboogers tracks in cars registered elsewhere. The imbalance can be significant, and is worst with many low population states such as Montana and the Dakotas. While a technical solution for this challenge is possible, I'm not sure how practical and/or politically feasible a GPS recorder on every private vehicle would be, not to mention deploying the reader technology to every DMV.

This is where federal taxes bridge the expenses that the individual states cannot afford. South Dakota doesn't have enough cars to pay for a new interstate across it, while that interstate traffic might necessitate a highway.

I do agree that curb weight should probably be factored in to some extent for a truly fair tax assessment, but then you need to balance simplicity versus accuracy. Perhaps a hybrid miles tax-gallons tax is the answer.

From my situation, this sounds like a pretty good idea. I filled up Saturday and have driven only 49 miles the past six days.

I do have some questions. Would all vehicles pay the same tax?

Heavier vehiches are harder on roads. Would someone in a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla pay the same as the egomaniac who drives an Escalade or Hummer?

Would 18 wheelers pay more per mile than four or six wheel trucks?



http://www.trucksafety.org/large_truck_fact_sheet.php

I realize some diehard supply siders might not wish to contemplate these questions. We certainly wouldn't want to place any undue burden on business, would we.

Edited to add link.

They already do (see link) – but in NY for example only if the truck weighs more than 18,000 pounds. I agree with you that if we do go to tax by mile we should factor in weight and make all vehicles pay their fair share including SUVs etc. Also I am not sure trucks pay their fair shear now – should be looked at IMO.

http://www.tax.state.ny.us/e-services/oscar/pghutinfo.htm


Actually as a supply sider – I think you have it wrong. What we don’t want to do is make business uncompetitive with taxes that are not equal across the board. As you might know many states do not use all the gas and road taxes for highway repair etc. In fact many just put much of the money into the “general fund”.

Thus the “gas tax” does not all fund road work or even mass transit. This is then, just another tax on individuals. And as you should know “businesses” don’t pay taxes – we do in the costs of the product or service and if the tax burden in a state makes the “business’ uncompetitive (with other states – or countries) they simply move out or go out of business.

If experience with toll roads, bridges and tunnels is any indicator, the answer is "it depends." When I did my rideaboot, if I had a less than pleasant encounter with a toll booth operator in Maryland on I-95. The 8,000lb Suburban passing through the tollgate next to me paid $4.00. Dripping wet, my son, myself, and my rig weighed in at less than 1,400 lbs. We paid $10. Why the ridiculous disparity? My rig had three axles. A motorcycle pulling a trailer. As a general rule, greater axle count on cars and trucks = greater weight, but my experience clearly indicates the flaw in that generalization. Yet that generalization often drives toll costs. With regards to a mileage based tax, it wouldn't be too difficult to incorporate the manufacturer's GVWR into the calculation.



Old, old data, that fails to account for either advances in vehicle design or advances in roadways. While the trucks do have a greater impact than cars (which is one reason why they are restricted from many roads), the disparity is nowhere near as great as that report claims. More recent data gives a range of 800 {American Trucking Association} to 3,000 {Frank McCullough, Ph.D., at the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas in Austin} car equivalents. Still a honkin number, but less than a third of your data.

Any "undue burden" on business will simply be passed on to the consumers. Whether or not setting a mileage tax rate (note that commercial vehicles already pay mileage taxes!) to, hopefully, more accurately reflect ALL vehicle rated highway costs will be a regressive tax. It will increase costs for those who use public transportation exclusively. As it currently stands, low income public transit users are doubly subsidized, first by getting fuel tax dollars, and second by the lower (60-90%) cost/revenue recovery rate related to large commercial vehicles. Boost commercial vehicle mileage taxes to fully account for their costs, and shipping costs go up, and therefore retail prices go up, affecting everybody.

Regardless the fact is that trucks do far more damage top roads per mile – add to this the fact that most roads are designed poorly and you get the traffic jams so common this time of year as roads are “re-surfaced” AGAIN.

Do you think any of the idiots who specify these roads takes into consideration the time and gas wasted as we all inch through the road repair areas – the answer is a resounding NO.

IMO the Germans are the only people who have a clue on building a “road