Slashdot Mirror
US Contemplating 'Vehicle Miles Traveled' Tax
dawgs72 writes "This week the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues, and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance. The proposed tax would be enforced through the use of electronic metering devices installed on all vehicles. The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
So, um, how are they going to split that between county, state, and federally-funded roads?
Infrastructure is infrastructure. Everyone benefits from having it. Putting this kind of administrative overhead on it just makes it more expensive *and* takes away the benefit.
I think the real problem is that people mostly can't afford to live close to where they work. This leads to a lot of inefficiency, as they waste lots of time and energy driving back and forth from their cheap suburbs to the higher rent districts that pay just barely enough to survive if you live a neighborhood a tier or two away. Relatively cheap transportation sorta creates this situation, but there has got to be better ways to solve this than by making transportation more expensive with all of this metering equipment.
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc. Get rid of suburban sprawl by zoning more parks and greenways. Maybe build some summer cottages / timeshares so people can still get away "to the country". Done! All the other countries are doing it :-P
Isn't this already covered by the gas tax, which is inherently incurred on a "per mile" (gallon, really) basis?
Anything that can be taxed, will. Those things which can not be taxed will be fined.
Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use less gas? An excise tax on gasoline is an excellent way to do so.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to create a GIANT system with many layers of government, to take more money based on actual miles driven. But we already have that - called a gasoline tax. At least with the gas tax I have an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car if I must commute (I must, far too). With this I would have much less. I think this is just to avoid being the "bad guys" that raise the gas tax. I thought one of the points of the gas taxes was to encourage efficiency.
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Oh dear-- I just imagined government workers being cautious with other people's money! How silly of me!
Constitution? We still have one of those?
Federally managed because the federal government is what people want. Largely, the United States seems to want a large, powerful, federal government and not respect the different cultures of different states. This is why the popular vote fiasco with President Bush was so easy for people to harp on. They no longer recognize or respect the separation of states. Further, the Federal Government uses taxes it levies on people to redistribute to state governments specifically for that kind of infrastructure. In a way, even state roads are paid for with Federal money.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
"these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance...The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
If this were really the case then the gasoline tax is both a great proxy for miles driven and the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles consume more gasoline and also damage roads more per mile). It also fosters the purchase of lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Great idea! Slow down economic activity until economic activity speeds up!
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
Indeed.
The CBO reports on all sorts of things. The existence of this report only means that one person in congress asked them for a report. It does not mean that congress as a body is even considering such a thing, much less likely to do it.
For "nerds" a lot of people sure are susceptible to propaganda.
People who cavalierly wast resources should be paying this burden, not us people who are stuck with commutes, but thoughtful enough to buy vehicles which are misers on gas consumption.
I'm confounded when I drive through suburban neighborhoods and see 80% of the homes have at least one Pickup/SUV in the driveway - most of these are never going to be used for construction or off-road. They're the modern equivalent of the Station Wagon. If gas is so cheap these people are commuting with these, and I see them in large percentages on my daily commute, then gas is still too cheap. Get off that addiction, people!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut
"I'm a fiscal conservative" is almost always a euphemism for "I don't like paying taxes, and I damn sure don't like having my tax money spent on things that benefit people from the lower classes."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I can leave doors open all day, I have left windows on the lower level of my home open all day, simply because of where I live which is the suburbs
Big city schools, yeah that is where its at, if at is graduating a small portion of your students and generally getting stomped by most schools in surrounding counties for GPA/SAT and graduation rates. Top it off with more chances for gang activity and I think you begin to see why people might not want to live in them.
You live your life and let the rest live theirs. NYC is special because of rent control and the like which has gone further than many other cities. Or perhaps you would prefer San Francisco which has nicely driven nearly all blacks from the town by pricing them out of the mark with new building rules and restrictions on what can go where.
Cities work for some people, they don't work for everyone. Atlanta is almost to racial parity but is that a good thing? It is a simple reason really, the city is getting too expensive for the poor to live in it and the poor are majority minority here. Yet people say "move to the city" which brings more yuppies who tear down or gut nice row homes jacking the costs to live in the neighborhood
Back to the story. It was to be expected with the push for better mileage vehicles that the method of taxation must change. Why they need meters I will never know, they can just do inspections and check your mileage. Of course with meters and GPS they can tell which roads you used. It all comes down to one thing.
Instead of spending the money they get and doing well with it they are forever looking for new sources and usually spending it before they get it
.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...and they're completely tamper proof.
So you believe the correct answer is to install a second, hardened odometer that provides no benefits whatsoever to the owner. You work as a contractor, don't you?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
In the Netherlands (a much smaller country than the US), they tried and failed to introduce this idea (road pricing), abandoning it in 2001. The problem was, how to implement it? Their are basically two ways to do it: either an attempt is made to identify all the cars on all the roads at all times in order to work out how far each has traveled so that they can all be taxed accordingly, or all vehicles must have a tracking device installed (basically a cell phone with a GPS) so that the tax authorities can perform the same calculations. The former is impractical due to the cost and complexity of implementation, while the second raises serious privacy concerns. Because of this, the Dutch government eventually decided to back down and stick with the decades-old flat tax for all motor vehicles no matter how much or how little the individual motorists use the roads.
Actually, if the idea had been implemented, it would have made all forms of commercial transportation using the roads (for goods, services and people) significantly more expensive. Well, would the companies involved have had to pay those taxes equally? Perhaps. If so, you know those costs would have been passed on to the consumers anyway (including the ones without cars), making everything from peanuts to public transportation more expensive. If not, the average motorist would consider the tax unjust.
Consider also that there is a much simpler alternative: simply add more tax to the price of fuel (75% of which already consists of tax in the Netherlands). This is not only an effective solution (those who drive more pay more tax), it's also low-tech (so it's super cheap to implement) and it further encourages people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, a fuel tax is arguably also a more effective method of taxing foreign vehicles that would otherwise likely pay less, or no road tax at all.