Full Version: Once again, California leads the way
Not sure quite what category this fits into, perhaps AD should set aside a special section for nutty ideas from California. Here's the article ( may require registration), but basically what is says is the following.......
What has apparently happened is that the people of California have started purchasing more fuel efficient cars, like hybrids and that has caused the state to lose money on gas taxes. So now, because California has become so "enviornmentally aware", the state isn't making as much money as they'd like to make, so they want to change the rules and tax every car by the miles they drive, not by the gas they use or the pollution they cause. Meanwhile, Arnold is trying to convince Honda to open a plant to build their hybrid cars here in Southern California..... It would appear we have a disconnect.
The question for debate is....
Is this new way of taxing automobiles a good idea, or is it enviornmentally unsound?
QUOTE
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday appointed a new Department of Motor Vehicles director who has advocated taxing motorists for every mile they drive — 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 — now 18 cents a gallon — 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.
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 — now 18 cents a gallon — 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.
What has apparently happened is that the people of California have started purchasing more fuel efficient cars, like hybrids and that has caused the state to lose money on gas taxes. So now, because California has become so "enviornmentally aware", the state isn't making as much money as they'd like to make, so they want to change the rules and tax every car by the miles they drive, not by the gas they use or the pollution they cause. Meanwhile, Arnold is trying to convince Honda to open a plant to build their hybrid cars here in Southern California..... It would appear we have a disconnect.
The question for debate is....
Is this new way of taxing automobiles a good idea, or is it enviornmentally unsound?
No question -- bad idea.
1. It's going to take a LOT of money to come up with these gizmos that will tell Big Brother how far you've been driving. Besides that, there will soon be ways to fool the gizmos.
2. This completely removes the incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. Why shouldn't I buy myself a big luxury gas guzzler if I don't have to pay any more taxes per mile than the person with the hybrid? Let's face it; most people only become Green when it saves them green.
Adjusting the state budget is a monumental task, of course, but there has to be a better way to go than this. Why not bump up the gas tax, if more road money is really needed?
1. It's going to take a LOT of money to come up with these gizmos that will tell Big Brother how far you've been driving. Besides that, there will soon be ways to fool the gizmos.
2. This completely removes the incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. Why shouldn't I buy myself a big luxury gas guzzler if I don't have to pay any more taxes per mile than the person with the hybrid? Let's face it; most people only become Green when it saves them green.
Adjusting the state budget is a monumental task, of course, but there has to be a better way to go than this. Why not bump up the gas tax, if more road money is really needed?
Is this new way of taxing automobiles a good idea, or is it enviornmentally unsound?
How will the government determine how many miles you have gone and when will you have to pay the tax?
How much will these device's cost, and will I have to burden the cost?
Not only do we have to pay the new tax, we will have to pay taxes for the tax.
Currently the taxes are still payed but are disproportionate. Hybrids run off of electricity which is taxed (other than the electricity that is generated when braking) or hydrogen which is also taxed, but none of the alternative's have the higher tax of gas.
In other words, if I own a hybrid, I will actually end up paying more taxes than those who have a car powered by gas.
No, not a good idea at all. Also I dont like the fact that the government will know how many mile's I traveled.
Not to mention if you cross state borders and need to refuel you will be paying a double tax.
How will the government determine how many miles you have gone and when will you have to pay the tax?
How much will these device's cost, and will I have to burden the cost?
Not only do we have to pay the new tax, we will have to pay taxes for the tax.
Currently the taxes are still payed but are disproportionate. Hybrids run off of electricity which is taxed (other than the electricity that is generated when braking) or hydrogen which is also taxed, but none of the alternative's have the higher tax of gas.
In other words, if I own a hybrid, I will actually end up paying more taxes than those who have a car powered by gas.
No, not a good idea at all. Also I dont like the fact that the government will know how many mile's I traveled.
Not to mention if you cross state borders and need to refuel you will be paying a double tax.
I get the idea, tax by usage and not by consumption. Toll booths have been used for centuries to pay for roads, a proven idea that works.
If you want to pay by mileage and use individual devices in every vehicle to track mileage, there comes a problem of where those miles are clocked. For example, someone might live and register a vehicle in CA, but do most of the driving in other states.
The best thing for CA to do is put up toll boths and raise the gas tax. That way you're taxing both consumption and usage, thus keeping the pressure on to conserve and to travel less. I suppose barcode bumber stickers could be used to collect the tolls electronically. The gas tax is in place and only needs to be raised.
So the device idea is bad. I wonder why it was proposed? Keep the gas revenues from being hit? Guess I'm just a suspicious type.
If you want to pay by mileage and use individual devices in every vehicle to track mileage, there comes a problem of where those miles are clocked. For example, someone might live and register a vehicle in CA, but do most of the driving in other states.
The best thing for CA to do is put up toll boths and raise the gas tax. That way you're taxing both consumption and usage, thus keeping the pressure on to conserve and to travel less. I suppose barcode bumber stickers could be used to collect the tolls electronically. The gas tax is in place and only needs to be raised.
So the device idea is bad. I wonder why it was proposed? Keep the gas revenues from being hit? Guess I'm just a suspicious type.
This has some merit from a policy wonk perspective at least. Especially if heavier vehicles are taxed at a higher rate than lighter ones (because heavier vehicles are harder on road surfaces). If the taxes are being used to repair worn-out roads, it makes sense to tax those the most who tear up the roads the most. But (again, from a policy wonkish, social engineering perspective) it should be in addition to, not instead of, a gasoline tax.
But I would think that this is pretty much accomplished already by the existing system of charging heavier vehicles more in annual registration taxes (i. e. liscense plate tax). In a narrow sense this proposed system may be more accurate and thus "fair", but it seems unjustifiably complicated.
But I would think that this is pretty much accomplished already by the existing system of charging heavier vehicles more in annual registration taxes (i. e. liscense plate tax). In a narrow sense this proposed system may be more accurate and thus "fair", but it seems unjustifiably complicated.
Topic closed...
Reason: Duplicate topic.
Recommended action:
Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.
Helpful links:
- Simple Search
- Advanced Search
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
Original Debate: Big Brother is Watching
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.