Gas Tax Hikes and Milage Tax News, The End Is Near

"Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2" (pompei426)
12/09/2013 at 10:41 • Filed to: None

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! 's the Car and Driver article.

DISCUSSION (23)

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 10:50

I don't have too much issue with a gas tax; I am aware that with the rollout of electric cars, there needs to be a way to gain revenue from them as well, but a US gas tax would still have them buying cheaper gas than 70% of the world (us Canadians know well). I can see criticism in the gas tax hike in that it is a regressive tax, and will end up affecting those who can barely afford gas as it is.

Mileage tax, on the other hand, I can't support. The idea of having to be tracked to generate a tax number is bad enough, but some people have to travel. Mileage taxes are also a regressive tax (equally regressive—retracting earlier statements possibly suggesting otherwise).

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 10:52

I would gladly support this if they also concurrently rolled back fuel efficiency standards.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise
12/09/2013 at 10:56

I think that a VMT program should be rolled out for heavy duty trucks as soon as possible. It makes total sense for these vehicles that are already tracked by GPS by virtually all trucking fleets.

I totally hear you on the privacy front regarding VMT for light duty vehicles. I don't however think that a VMT tax is any more regressive than a gas tax. They both apply exactly the same way to low income individuals.

For Sweden > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise
12/09/2013 at 10:56

Especially when the gas tax is a usage tax that has built-in economy incentives.

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
12/09/2013 at 10:58

Or managed them more efficiently. Make it depend on vehicle sales; Ford sells a great proportion of Fiestas, Focii and Fusion Hybrids (for sake of argument, let's say 300k — it might be more than that)? Then don't make a 665 horsepower Mustang for which only 500 (again, speculative for the sake of argument) count with the same weight for that average.

For Sweden > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 11:01

The title asks, "Will the money go where it's supposed to?"

If it did, I think most drivers would support raising the fuel tax. I don't mind spending am extra buck or two per fill-up for good roads.

However, it won't go to roads, especially if any agencies like the California Dept. of Transportation have any say in the matter.

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
12/09/2013 at 11:01

Okay, so I'll retract the statement about one tax being more regressive than the other (logically, I don't know why I initially made the argument). I agree with you on the VMT program as well.

dogisbadob > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
12/09/2013 at 11:02

CAFE is stupid in general, especially with relatively low fuel prices.

JR1 > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 11:02

I am not ok with being taxed per mile, gas price increase thats ok I guess, but it's my freedom to drive as many miles as I please without being taxed for it!

dogisbadob > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 11:04

Raising the gas tax is OK since it will make people drive less and/or consider a more efficient car; maybe this will finally revive the market for wagons over here!

Raise the gas tax and repeal CAFE!

Car and Driver actually made that argument about 10 years ago, that making driving cheaper doesn't make people drive less, and that CAFE makes the companies produce fuel efficient cars but doesn't actually make people *want* them.

The worst thing, though, is the constant misuse of taxpayer funds (this isn't just restricted to the taxes and tolls mentioned in the article).

They should raise the gasoline tax, but don't raise the diesel tax.

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > JR1
12/09/2013 at 11:05

To be fair, a gas tax increase does tax you for driving more miles, but you have the freedom not to be tracked while doing it. Or, at least you should.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > dogisbadob
12/09/2013 at 11:12

Making driving cheaper actually makes people drive more. This is known as the "rebound effect" and there is tons of literature trying to calculate exactly how strong this effect is. It was of critical importance when setting the 54.5 MPG fuel economy standards as part of these rules justification was that they would reduce green house gas emissions. Its basically another convenient way that the government can skew cost benefit analyses to support their rules.

As to your second point about people wanting fuel economy improvements you are absolutely correct. There will be a breaking point at which consumers will no loner be interested in fuel economy improvements. The 2025 fuel economy standards are estimated by the EPA to cost $3,000 per vehicle. We will see how much consumers are willing to pony up.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > For Sweden
12/09/2013 at 11:16

The current program is set up so that 20% of your gas tax revenue goes into the public transit trust fund account while the other 80% goes to the highway trust fund. Rep. Blumenauer's legislation maintains this 80-20 split for his proposed increases.

JR1 > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise
12/09/2013 at 11:18

In a way you can also combat the gas tax with driving a more fuel efficient car, a tax per mile you have no way of combating

Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise > JR1
12/09/2013 at 11:20

True, but even then, you are taxed for driving more (even if your taxes would be less then those with the less efficient car). I'll stop being pedantic now.

JR1 > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise
12/09/2013 at 11:24

You are right and in a perfect world there would be no tax increase and the government wouldn't be the size it is today, but since our world is not perfect I'd rather just get the tax via gas than cents per mile. I believe that goes against my rights to privacy.

FlipperB > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 11:26

I understand the push for a miles-driven tax. Cars that aren't petroleum-fueled still impose a burden on state- and federally-funded roads. They should pay a share of the upkeep.

I don't, however, understand why a miles-driven tax would require GPS tracking. Many states (including Virginia, where I live) mandate an annual safety inspection. It wouldn't be difficult to record the odometer reading at these inspections — or even tie dealerships & repair facilities into a reporting system where they could feed odometer readings into a database. Sharing how many miles I've driven shouldn't require sharing precisely where I've driven.

And yes, I realize that it's not too difficult to cheat and roll back your odometer. But that's already a criminal offense, and 99.5% of drivers wouldn't sink to that level for something as trivial as evasion of a $150 tax bill.

For Sweden > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
12/09/2013 at 11:27

Now, how much of that will go towards asphalt, and how much will go towards drunken, paid, two-hour lunch breaks ?

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 11:41

Call me when you've got >$8 per gallon...

In some ways, Europe sucks.

deekster_caddy > Ravey Mayvey Slurpee Surprise
12/09/2013 at 13:35

As a relatively new EV driver (Chevy Volt), I have no problem with some kind of usage tax. But it must acknowledge that far more than personal transportation uses the roads we all pay taxes to maintain. A gas tax only taxes direct users of gasoline. I have to pay a 'road usage' gas tax to fill my gas powered lawnmower. Big trucks have to pay more taxes to provide goods that benefit everybody. Should it even be a fuel related tax, which hurts the little guy (by making gas more expensive) or should it be a national 'our roads cost x to maintain and build' and everybody's taxes go up. How should people pay taxes anyway? Income percentage? Sales tax (those roads are needed to ship your goods to you)?

The thing is, there are some things (like road infrastructure) that everybody benefits from. Should those be assumed by 'general' tax methods or given a special funding?

Alternatively, turn all 'major' roads into Toll Roads and do away with fuel taxes.

All tax solutions have their 'fairness' problems. There is no absolutely fair way to fund all of the things a nation needs to thrive. Who is going to be the politician that wants to present a major overhaul of how we collect and spend money? It's like shooting your political career in the foot.

Wow, I really went off on that topic.

tl;dr taxes can be very confusing.

Stef Schrader > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2
12/09/2013 at 13:47

I feel as if putting a tracking ANYTHING on ANYTHING I personally own without a gott dang warrant for suspicious behavior or stuff I've done wrong is such a violation of my right to privacy that these dingalings from Oregon need to be slapped upside the head with an angry chihuahua for even proposing it.

Please eversokindly report immediately for your chihuahua slap, reps. Also, deport yourselves. To Antarctica.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Stef Schrader
12/09/2013 at 14:54

I only recommended this once because Kinja. Otherwise I would give you at least 17 stars. I get distracted easily and would probably move on to something else after 17 stars.

But yeah, screw anybody ever putting a tracking device on any of my vehicles. Now excuse me while I put my phone back in my pocket.

davedave1111 > For Sweden
12/09/2013 at 15:18

Hypothecation of tax revenues is generally held to be a bad thing. (Hypothecation is when the revenues from one thing are matched up to the costs of another thing, like motoring taxes being spent on roads, for example.) If it makes sense to spend a certain amount on roadworks, it makes sense regardless of how much is raised in motoring taxes; if a certain level of motoring tax makes sense, it makes sense regardless of how much needs to be spent on the roads.

Every dollar the government takes in is just the same as all the others.