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."
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.
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
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!
It's called an odometer.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Road damage goes as the 4th power of the axle weight so a Honda Insight does essentially no damage. An Escalade does do damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance
I'd rather not see a miles traveled tax. It would be better to have a new vehicle fee proportional to the expected life of the vehicle and the 4th power of the axle weight. That cost gets passed along proportionally in the further sale of the vehicle.
You can't. It's a size issue. this idea of everyone living in a city is absurd.
Sure you can - It just takes city planners with vision. Look at these pictures from my city (Vancouver, Canada). I have lots of friends raising families in the city, with parks, schools, supermarkets nearby and all walkable.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2734/4112965898_7112701b00.jpg
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/08/70/45/400_F_8704550_q9V0W99I76eCkun4RbXmAi8sjTieGEix.jpg
The buildings you see in those pictures are all residential.
Not to mention that not everyone wants to live in a city. My dad commutes an hour each way to/from work simply because my parents wanted to live somewhere rural and quiet, and actually have some land. Both my brother and I are out of school so that's irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the practicality of living in a city. A lot of people just hate that kind of environment. If they wanted to live near the office they could afford to do so, they just don't want that.
A better investment would be improving other infrastructure so that telecommuting is more practical. Maybe not five days a week (for most people, it's very hard to keep on task without spending at least a day a week in the office), but even if it's only useful one day a week you're still removing 20% of the commuting. Never mind that people will be happier because they can spend more time with their kids/spouses/etc, not wasting their own time driving around, and can avoid at least some office politics. And, oh yeah, we have better communications infrastructure, which helps us stay relevant to the rest of the world.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
We have a larger navy than the next 11 countries combined, and 9 of those are our allies.
Step 1) Reduce navy to the save of the next 5 countries combined.
We have more agriculture department employees than there are farmers.
Step 2) Eliminate all farm subsidies and cut the agriculture department to the bone.
We fight too many wars
Step 3) Stop fighting wars and eliminate supplemental war expenditures.
Stop fighting the "war on drugs" and every other "war on..." that we have been loosing since the 1960s. Get over it already.
Step 4) Stop prosecuting and start taxing vices and victimless crimes.
I currently work as a defense contractor, and I know first that the government is incompetent and defense spending is largely wasteful.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Perhaps if your friends are super rich they can afford to live in vancouver city proper. MOST people with kids live in the suburbs, unless they live in their parents old house or some other stroke of luck. There was even an article on it in the tyee recently: Vancouvers Downtown Chases out kids
Not to mention the fact that EVERYONE drives in the lower mainland.. EVERYONE.. Taking the transit is simply not an option as its between 3.75 to 5.00 each way from any suburb. Which is MORE than it costs for gasoline on the same trip, even with gas being 1.31/L currently. Source
Vancouver is HORRIBLY designed. We have very poor density compared to many other urban centres, with sprawling "vancouver special" houses which are built wide, not tall due to regulations. You have these choke points of bridges which clog up and waste tonnes of time every day. Even in my 7km commute to downtown (read BARELY in the suburbs), generally takes an 30-45 minutes in rush hour. And thats using plenty of shortcuts.
Now these condos you mentioned, from your image it looks to be olympic village. Want to know what it costs to live there? Go take a look: Olympic Village Pricing. You will see that it costs 500k -1M for a 2 bedroom 800sqft apartment in your "city planners with vision" utopia. How the fuck is that affordable for a family???
Sure if you think its a good idea to raise a family in an 800sqft shoebox with only concord pacifics Ãvisionà of "shared green space" (2 acres for like 10k people to relax in) Source. But honestly, i think you are rich, terribly deluded, dont have kids over 4 years old, or simply misinformed.
The bottom line is that you are wrong to use vancouver as a good model of anything sustainable or affordable. Vancouver, where you cant get a 1200sqft house for under 850k. Vancouver, where there is a whole site making fun of the fact that you cant tell million dollar houses from crack house.
Vancouver has a LONG way to go before it is hospitable to families or even pedestrians! When was the last time you walked to surrey from downtown? To burnaby? To richmond?
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
No, the problem is that people living in those sprawling houses aren't usually willing to pay the true costs to do so.
I have no problem with people having the sprawling mansion in the country. What I have a problem with is that I have to pay for them to do so. I pay the same amount per month for garbage collection, recycling, water, and sewer that they do, but the cost to deliver those services actually costs less to my house closer in than it does to theirs further out.
This is why my taxes go up every single year, and by more than inflation. It's because the taxes paid by those in the new communities on the outskirts of the city do not cover the costs associated with providing them the services, so they raise everyone's taxes to compensate.
Live wherever you like, live in whatever type of house you like. But don't pass your costs on to me.