Taxing Drivers By The Mile

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> A very idiotic idea. Cars that get better mileage are lights, so they
cause
> less wear and tear than heavier gas guzzlers. So while there could be
less
> tax money coming in, there is less tear on the road so they will need
less
> maintenance. The stupid politicians are worried that they will have
less
> money to divert to their pet projects. The gas tax is the best way to
tax road
> use.

That's too logical for the average government worker (or politician) to
comprehend...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:01:50 -0500, "Paul" > wrote:

>
>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
>> A very idiotic idea. Cars that get better mileage are lights, so they
>cause
>> less wear and tear than heavier gas guzzlers. So while there could be
>less
>> tax money coming in, there is less tear on the road so they will need
>less
>> maintenance. The stupid politicians are worried that they will have
>less
>> money to divert to their pet projects. The gas tax is the best way to
>tax road
>> use.
>
>That's too logical for the average government worker (or politician) to
>comprehend...
>
>
Aside from the privacy issues, the major problem I have with a
mileage-based tax is that drivers of efficient cars (who tend to make
less money) will pay relatively higher taxes while those driving SUVs
(who tend to make more money) will pay relatively lower taxes.

Plus, what would stop the states from enacting a mileage based tax IN
ADDITION TO rather than instead of the current gas tax?

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
> What idiots. They could try raising the gas tax instead. Not
> politically the easiest thing to do, but then neither is strapping on a
Big
> Brother to every single car in the state.

My answer would be that instead of raising taxes every time money is
suddenly needed look at reducing expenses.

From what I understand (this may not be the case any longer) the gas tax
produces a surplus over the cost of building and maintaining roads but the
fund is raided by politicians for other uses. If that's the case then they
need to stop allowing that raiding to happen.

It's kind of like the whole toll-road scenario. A road is built and funded
with tolls. The promise is made that when the road is paid off that the
tolls will be removed but when that time comes they leave the tolls in place
and use them to fund other roads (or projects). I believe GA-400 is a case
where this has been happening.

Brad

In the previous article, Ed Stasiak > wrote:
> As more and more hybrids
> hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning
> of rough roads ahead.

"Cash-strapped states," my freckly white ass. Which state had lower
revenues in 2004 than in 2003? I don't know for an absolute fact that
*every* state's revenue keeps increasing, but I do know that I keep
hearing about budget "crises" in states like Michigan and California,
where revenues are most certainly up from year to year. State
revenue, as far as I know, has *never* gone down in Michigan -- and
certainly not in recent years -- yet the government-media complex
keeps beating the drum about how little money the state government
has. It's the same game they play at the federal level.

This is just a marketing ploy to make yet another tax increase go down
a little smoother. Don't buy it.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / |to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"J.D. Baldwin" > wrote
> In the previous article, Ed Stasiak > wrote:
>> As more and more hybrids
>> hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning
>> of rough roads ahead.
>
> "Cash-strapped states," my freckly white ass. Which state had lower
> revenues in 2004 than in 2003? I don't know for an absolute fact that
> *every* state's revenue keeps increasing, but I do know that I keep
> hearing about budget "crises" in states like Michigan and California,
> where revenues are most certainly up from year to year. State
> revenue, as far as I know, has *never* gone down in Michigan -- and
> certainly not in recent years -- yet the government-media complex
> keeps beating the drum about how little money the state government
> has. It's the same game they play at the federal level.

CA lost revenue when the internet bubble burst. Spending dropped,
which cost sales tax revenues. And their govt had to spend more
due to the Enron/energy crisis stuff.

WA has much the same problem, but also exacerbated by Tim
Eyman initiative drives that eliminated excise taxes on automobiles,
much of which was actually going to cities/counties (and other non-road
stuff, which I have to admit was garbage.)

OR lost revenue because of high unemployment during the recession.

All states have lost money that used to be shared by the federal govt.
for various programs, such as farm & conservation, Forest Service
timber sale shares, etc. The current Bush proposals will increase
this trend of un-funded mandates and lower federal cost-sharing.

So your premise is incorrect in CA/WA, and only true in OR because
their revenue growth is 0.

Floyd in Seattle.

In article . com>,
Sherman Cahal > wrote:
>Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
>> You know what they need to do?
>>
>> Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
>>
>> A lot of our problems would be solved then.
>
>Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
>"truck" when its clearly not.

Oh, look, another idiot who can't tell the difference between a light
truck and a heavy truck.

>I got another proposal: Tax by the EPA's
>MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG in
>the city should pay more, and so forth.

I've got a proposal that will make people pay per-mile taxes inversely
proportional to their actual (not estimated) mileage. I call it the
"gas tax", and it works like this: Whenever someone buys fuel, charge
them a certain amount per gallon regardless of their mileage. They
get 30mpg, they pay half the tax per mile as someone who gets 15mpg.
Pretty cool, huh? Now if only some government would implement such a thing....

In article >,
Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>I hope they bring their own power source. My VW has a 6 volt system.
>
>On my other cars, its funny how the GPS fuse keeps blowing just before a
>long trip.

Even if they somehow could self-power them for a long enough time (and
GPS power requirements are too great for that), it's really funny how
covering the antenna simulates being parked in a garage.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Because that precludes the excellent idea of congestion pricing.
>
>When each car is fitted with a small tracking device, that opens the
>door to all kinds of creative ways to extract revenue from the driving
>public. Congestion pricing, automatic parking fees, mileage taxes -
>these are just the beginning!

Careful, that stuff really messes up keyboards.

In article .com>,
Gary V > wrote:
>The argument in favor of GPS tracking is that then they will only
>charge you for the miles you travel in your state. For example,
>imagine OR passes this, and then you take a roadtrip from Portland,OR
>to Portland, ME. 7000 miles later you get back to OR with your
>transponder. You pull up to the pump, and suddenly they charge you
>$24.00 for gas and $87.00 for miles. GAAAK!

And what if all you have in your wallet is $20.00 for gas and no
credit cards? "Sorry, you don't get any gas, but we reduced your
mileage bill by $20.00 as soon as you put the bill into the reader."

Or will it become illegal to pay for gas with cash?

- another Gary

In the previous article, fbloogyudsr > wrote:
> So your premise is incorrect in CA/WA, and only true in OR because
> their revenue growth is 0.

What are the figures?

The ones I found on the web say California revenue grew over nine
percent in 2003-2004 (I suppose it's too early for 2004-2005). I also
found a chart in http://www.erfc.wa.gov/pubs/dec04.pdf that seems to
indicate Washington state revenue has been steadily increasing since
early 2003, and even the net decline they had was brief and trivial
compared to the boom before and the recovery after.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / |to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------