Slashdot Mirror
Draft Proposal Would Create Agency To Tax Cars By the Mile
theodp writes "The Hill reports that the Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive. The plan is a part of the administration's 'Transportation Opportunities Act,' and calls for spending $200 million to implement a new Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office tasked with creating a 'study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems.' The office would be required to consider four factors — the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs, and 'user acceptance' — in field trials slated to begin within four years at unspecified sites. Forbes suggests the so-called vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax should be called the Rube Goldberg Gas Tax, because while its objective is the same as the gas tax, the way it collects revenue is extremely complex, costly and cumbersome." The disclaimers are thick on the ground, though; note, this is an "early draft," not pending legislation.
This sounds very, very bad.
It will never pass the house.
“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
Not quite the same as the summary...
Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. They know, knew, and understand that you cannot fix a deficit or reduce the national debt without raising taxes. So all their talk about cutting and tax reduction is impossible on paper, basic math will tell you less revenue in means less to spend with. Less input = less output. The only question is who is going to pay the taxes when implemented.
It's going to take some taxes like this, and unfortunately driving is a luxury. Just so long as we don't get taxed for the bus, the train, the plane or group transportation. I mean this tax probably will suck and be annoying but its this or we lose social security, education, healthcare, and we get to watch grandma die.because you couldn't afford her medicine or treatment.
Creative taxation is the best move Obama could have made. As a libertarian I don't like taxes, but I do like having healthcare so let's be realistic, unless you are a libertarian millionaire or billionaire, you will rely on the government at some point in life whether it be financial aid, healthcare, or something else. And the Walton's and Koch bro's are not going to save grandma, they aren't going to help you pay for your education, and they wont give you money to survive so you don't become a criminal hooligan when unemployed or laid off. The government is the only check and balance against the corporation. The government in theory exists to defend human rights, and even if it doesn't do the job in practice, it is at least supposed to. The corporation doesn't care about human rights, isn't designed to be capable of caring, and doesn't care about the national interest or otherwise. Even if the national interest is GDP and other measures which equally benefit all Americans, corporations don't even care what happens to America because they have offices around the globe, so think about that corporatist liberatians. Think about the private prisons, the sweat shops, the outright sex slaves being trafficked, and tell me what corporations have done about it.
What is the difference between this and the already-in-place fuel tax? The fuel tax is even better at metering costs to those that chew up roads (heavy vehicles). This sounds like a solution looking for a cause to me.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
It would destroy the trucking industry, would raise prices on everything, crush those in rural areas which are usually poor, push us back into a recession and even the few of our senators with a brain can figure this out and make sure it never happens.
I wouldn't. A consumption-based tax practically balances itself. The heavier vehicles create more wear due to their greater mass and they pay more into the tax fund because they consume more fuel to move that mass around. There's nothing to calculate or measure or derive. Vehicles are taxed according to their impact on the infrastructure. I realize it's not an absolute "prefect justice for all" scenario but there's very little bureaucracy involved in the current scenario so it should cost very little to implement (or, in this case, maintain). XX cents per gallon consumed. Done. All-electric and alternative fuel vehicles are such a small percentage that it's not worth the hassle of worrying about them at this point.
Basically there is a deficit, it has to be cut and the national debt has to be reduced. Social security has to be saved as well. This means only one option, we must raise taxes or die.
So then close all the corporate tax loopholes and have them pay their fair share. Stop letting companies like Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc get away with playing shell games to avoid taxes.
The whole thing makes no sense. Usually we use taxes to create incentives and disincentives, nudging the public in a direction determined by government.
By taxing gas you create an incentive for people to drive fewer miles and to use more efficient vehicles. I presume these are both aims of government.
Taxing per mile means there is no penalty for using an excessively large vehicle with poor fuel consumption over driving a smaller car that uses less fuel. I don't see any government implementing it in that simple form. It might be different if the proposal were to include bands for vehicles based on fuel consumption or emissions, with higher per mile charges for inefficient vehicles.
One disadvantage of taxing gas consumption or pollution is that we don't usually know how many people are in a vehicle. As a result, a family of six traveling in a minivan may be penalized at the same rate as an individual driving an SUV that has similar gas consumption.
Of course you can. You do it by spending less.
Why should the government save grandma? Paying for education... well, first there's the racket of Universities always increasing their tuition by the amount the government allows students to borrow, but more importantly it's the only kind of loan you can't discharge in bankruptcy. Student lending is a veritable goldmine for the government, and if they didn't have laws protecting their goldmine you can bet your bottom dollar that private banks would take up the mantle. Higher education is so lucrative it's ridiculous.
Unemployment? Well, that's insurance more or less. You pay an unemployment tax, and then if you later become unemployed you can collect. If the government didn't have a monopoly on that, too, I'd probably pay a private insurer for the same thing.
Losing social security? Fine by me. Let the workers take the ridiculous amount of money they pour into that system every paycheck and let them invest it on their own. Shoot, even mandate that you must invest a certain percent of your income somewhere if you're worried about people not doing it. Education? Well, see above. If you're in the U.S., you pay out the nose for it. Healthcare.. not really sure how taxes are related to that.
Sony ha
No kidding. Before you know it, they'll make auto-insurance required by law, just like health insurance!
It is a shame that they no longer teach in schools the difference between state and federal governments and the division of responsibilities accorded each based on the US Constitution. That's got to be the only reason such a stupid comment like this would appear here.
For the sarcasm impaired: the auto insurance laws are STATE laws that require coverage to protect THE OTHER GUY sharing the road with you; the new health insurance law is a FEDERAL LAW that nobody could bother to read before they voted on it that applies to everyone except those who have enough political clout to get exempted from it.
The other difference is that the AUTO insurance laws don't force insurers to cover every trip to the mechanic or replacement of worn out parts, while the HEALTH insurance law does.
The gas tax is a great tax. It self regulates for low mileage vehicles, heavy vehicles, and people who drive a lot. It also governs behavior by encouraging people to purchase high mileage cars when gasoline become expensive. The real reason they want this tax is not revenue. It's information. This is about having the ability to track people and machines as they move about the country. It will be an eternal battle to keep this at bay. The government will always be floating it, encouraging it, pushing it, inserting it in bills, you name it. Welcome to a new era.
Usually we use taxes to create incentives and disincentives, nudging the public in a direction determined by government.
The purpose of taxes isn't to control behavior or restrict personal choice, it's to raise revenue. Of course, lobbying groups try to move taxation to where it least affects them OR to impose their social agenda on others -- but that's not the purpose of taxes, it's just a natural side effect that yields our ungainly tax code.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Because mass of the vehicle has a hell of a lot to do with how much damage they do. Mass per axle needs to be taken into account as well as total distance driven.
Which kind of brings us back to the idea of this as basically a more complicated equivalent of a gas tax...
I mean, heavier vehicles will tend to have poorer fuel economy, and obviously if you drive farther you use more gas. If you accept also that it's desirable to encourage people to drive more efficient vehicles when possible, then it really seems like a gas tax is the way to go.
But it's unpopular to do anything that raises the price of gasoline. I suspect that may be why they're looking at alternatives. Tax basically the same thing, but measure it differently so people won't curse you every time they go to a gas station.
Bow-ties are cool.
Cripes, it wants the government to buy and install a bazillion fancy devices and install them on every car in the country? Well, I know one company that would like to see it pass...
Why is it this stupid idea reappears every 6 months or so? Every time it involves some expensive piece of hardware (GPS receivers for instance) that needs to be bought and installed on all umpteen million cars in the country, instead of the far more sensible solution of just having the yearly inspection guy write down the mileage off of the odometer every time you bring your car in and report that along with your results to the government. It won't work in states that don't do safety inspections, but they could work something out (owner just self reports for instance) that's about a billion times cheaper than whatever technological solution someone is trying to create a market for.
I read the internet for the articles.
Conservatives have the reverse problem, they tend to see taxation in infinitely flexible terms. They think cutting taxes will somehow raise more money, as if because rates went down, people are suddenly more willing to part with their money. Life is way more complicated than that.
Wealth doesn't flee unless it has someplace to go. Businesses may spend more. People may actually hire more when taxes are higher. Unintended consequences can be quite complex and counter-intuitive on both sides.
If business taxes are levied on profits then when taxes are high, expenses are effectively subsidized by the taxes the business would have paid on it's profits. If you would lose 33% of your dollar anyway, it's effectively the same as having the cost reduced by 33%. Thus growing your business may be more attractive than distributing dividends to the owners or bonuses to the executives. This is particularly true if capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and bonuses. And of course, if employee wages are an expense then profit taxes effectively subsidize employment.
Fanatically anti-fanatical