Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 71

Thread: DoT Investigating Tax Per Mile

  1. #1

    Default DoT Investigating Tax Per Mile

    Pay per mile: A timely tax idea, or a privacy threat?
    Obama administration draft proposal for study of mileage fee spurs interest

    As transportation officials struggle to raise enough tax dollars to maintain the nation's highway and transit systems, a tentative new proposal could put Americans on the hook for every mile they drive.

    Department of Transportation officials have drafted legislation that would study a vehicle tax to track how far drivers travel and charge them by the mile. The proposal would create a “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office” to conduct trials of the concept.

    The draft proposal was first reported this week in Transportation Weekly, a trade publication. A White House spokeswoman told The Hill newspaper that the draft "does not represent the views of the president” and is in no way an administration proposal.

    The White House put the brakes on a similar proposal floated early in Obama's presidency, with then-spokesman Robert Gibbs said that a mileage tax "is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration."

    That didn't stop operatives at the National Republican Congressional Committee from asking in a press release Thursday whether Democratic House members will support "President Obama’s new driving tax."

    The idea does have the support of some experts, who say it's a fairer way of charging drivers for the bridges and roads they use every day.

    A tax or fee on miles driven could possibly supplant the gasoline tax, which has has lost a third of its purchasing power since it was last raised by Congress in 1993. Since 2008, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, the money available in the highway trust fund has not been enough to cover federal spending on highways, requiring an additional injection of about $30 billion from the federal treasury.

    That report, which laid the groundwork for the draft, was conducted at the request of Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

    Problems with gasoline tax

    With continuing budget shortfalls for transportation projects, keeping the gasoline tax at its current level means some highways won’t get repaired in a timely fashion because the tax isn't raising enough revenue.

    But raising the tax when a gallon of gas costs more than $4 in many parts of the country is a nonstarter for most members of Congress.

    And the gasoline tax is pumping less money into federal coffers over time, as automobile companies continue to improve the fuel economy of cars they manufacture.

    California’s gasoline tax, for example, increased from 7 cents per gallon in 1970 to 18 cents in 2009, but the real revenue per mile of travel — after factoring in inflation and improved fuel economy — declined by 70 percent, according to Paul Sorensen, a researcher at the RAND Corporation, a California think tank.

    “Looking out a decade or more, more efficient conventional vehicles along with various alternative-fuel vehicle options will steadily undermine the viability of fuel taxes,” Sorensen told msnbc.com Thursday. “And fuel taxes will become increasingly unfair, charging more to owners of older and less efficient vehicles and less to owners of newer and more efficient vehicles.

    Sorensen and some of his colleagues at RAND did a detailed study of the mileage fee concept in 2009.

    Address the issue sooner rather than later

    With the Obama administration encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, “there’s a total contradiction in current government policy” in how highways are funded, said energy consultant Geoffrey Styles, who writes the widely followed Energy Outlook blog.

    Styles said policy makers need to address this issue “before there are 20 million electric vehicles on the road."

    "If we’ve waited that long, and all those folks have been used to driving those cars without paying any energy tax, then trying to change what we do is going to be a big disconnect,” he said.

    The idea of a mileage tax isn't new. Transportation experts have been assessing for years a tax on the number of miles driven by each car owner.

    In 2007, Oregon conducted a trial run of a fee based on the number of vehicle miles driven. When he was serving as governor of Minnesota in 2008, Tim Pawlenty, now a Republican presidential contender, proposed a $5 million study of mileage-based technologies.

    And in Singapore, Styles said, devices in each car already track how far a car has been driven and the government charges the driver per mile driven.

    How to protect drivers' privacy

    As experts have recognized, many Americans would be wary of the idea of a government agency tracking their vehicle in order to tax the miles they drive.

    “The problem comes the minute you introduce a device in the vehicle" because people "do not want the government to know where they are and where they are going," Styles said.

    He said a less problematic approach would be for the mileage driven to be noted when state agencies do their annual vehicle inspections. That data could be forwarded to the federal government which could then impose its tax assessment on each driver.

    But only two-thirds of states conduct vehicle inspections, meaning that some states would have to take on the additional costs of instituting odometer readings.

    Sorensen said the government might also want to vary the tax rate — raising it for travel during peak hours to help reduce congestion — and it might want to use the data from devices in cars to monitor traffic jams or assess which areas are most in need of improvements. All of those ideas would require a tracking device in each car.

    Still, Sorensen said, “if all you're concerned about is revenue, then reading the odometer would be fine," he said.
    Source

    Short term, I think this is a bad idea, and contrary to what our immediate goals should be. Higher gas taxes, I wouldn't really have a problem with. I think we should be encouraging gas effeciency for the short and medium terms, which means how much gas people use should be the primary determinant of how much they get taxed for road usage.

    However, the article does raise the point that as we transition to electric transportation (which we appear to be starting), relying on a gas tax isn't going to work in the long term. I'd rather not make the requisite privacy sacrifices to have a per-mile-driven tax (even though I'd probably benefit financially from such a policy), but the only other alternative I can think of would be a flat fee per driver/vehicle - not that I'd be really opposed to that. If they're just reading the odometer once a year, that doesn't seem too invasive, but it also seems very likely to lead to cheating. I'd really like to avoid any sort of onboard tracking.

    Discussion preferred with those who don't knee-jerk because it's a tax/related to Obama administration.

  2. #2
    IIRC there are some structural problems with a mileage tax (I read an article on this a while back, but I don't remember where it was). Briefly, taxes should be structured to reduce negative externalities. Driving a long distance isn't really the negative externality - using gasoline is. Now, we may overuse our roads, but the fix for that is going to be a lot more complex than reducing miles driven - we need to change urban planning, public transit, etc. - and a gas tax works just as well while actually providing an incentive to reduce gas usage (rather than miles driven).

    Obviously, with a high mileage tax OR a gas tax, revenues will drop as behaviors shift (cars get more efficient, people carpool/use public transit, etc.). This isn't a bad thing, but there should obviously be contingencies in place to deal with lost revenue when the tax starts to work. This can easily be addressed without ignoring the real reason for a gas tax - to reduce gas consumption.

    I think one of the best policies the feds should enact now is to phase in a much higher gas tax. This can provide badly needed revenue to replenish our infrastructure trust funds, reduce our carbon footprint AND our trade deficit, and improve air quality. It's pretty much a win all around. Mileage taxes would have similar effects, but not as direct.
    Last edited by wiggin; 05-06-2011 at 03:16 PM.

  3. #3
    That's political suicide.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    IIRC there are some structural problems with a mileage tax (I read an article on this a while back, but I don't remember where it was). Briefly, taxes should be structured to reduce negative externalities. Driving a long distance isn't really the negative externality - using gasoline is. Now, we may overuse our roads, but the fix for that is going to be a lot more complex than reducing miles driven - we need to change urban planning, public transit, etc. - and a gas tax works just as well while actually providing an incentive to reduce gas usage (rather than miles driven).

    Obviously, with a high mileage tax OR a gas tax, revenues will drop as behaviors shift (cars get more efficient, people carpool/use public transit, etc.). This isn't a bad thing, but there should obviously be contingencies in place to deal with lost revenue when the tax starts to work. This can easily be addressed without ignoring the real reason for a gas tax - to reduce gas consumption.

    I think one of the best policies the fed should enact now is to phase in a much higher gas tax. This can provide badly needed revenue to replenish our infrastructure trust funds, reduce our carbon footprint AND our trade deficit, and improve air quality. It's pretty much a win all around. Mileage taxes would have similar effects, but not as direct.
    I fully agree with you for the near term. Mileage tax is bad, higher gas tax is good. However, we won't be able to rely on a gas tax once we finish transitioning to whatever comes next. I'm assuming it'll be electric since that's the way the market seems to be going (fuel cells seem dead), and the timeline is mostly dependent on how long it takes them to get better batteries. If that's where we are going, we probably won't be able to use a fuel tax anymore, unless we're willing to just raise a broad energy tax, which I think would be a bad idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    That's political suicide.
    Probably. It's still in the nation's best interests.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    That's political suicide.
    I actually agree, but I don't understand why raising gas taxes is such a third rail. If done properly, it literally has no downsides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I fully agree with you for the near term. Mileage tax is bad, higher gas tax is good. However, we won't be able to rely on a gas tax once we finish transitioning to whatever comes next. I'm assuming it'll be electric since that's the way the market seems to be going (fuel cells seem dead), and the timeline is mostly dependent on how long it takes them to get better batteries. If that's where we are going, we probably won't be able to use a fuel tax anymore, unless we're willing to just raise a broad energy tax, which I think would be a bad idea.
    I agree that any tax on a negative externality eventually results in reduced revenue. This is exactly what we want - it's the best outcome possible! Trying to tax something that isn't bad and won't go away (like, say, income) is in general a bad idea but sometimes needs to be done to raise revenue. But before we start taxing good or neutral things, let's tax the bad things into (relative) extinction.

    There was an interesting case study in (IIRC) Washington DC a short while back. Plastic bags were becoming a significant environmental problem, clogging up the Potomac and its tributaries. So the municipality enacted a tax on each plastic bag used in a store and directed the revenue to cleanup efforts. It was a pretty small tax (a few cents per bag?) but the effect was strong and immediate - plastic bag consumption dropped like a rock as people used reusable alternatives. After a very short time, the original revenue stream also collapsed to a trickle. Obviously this was an issue for further cleanup efforts, so they had to redirect other revenue to the cause, but it was a GREAT result - future cleanup would be a lot cheaper and easier due to reduced plastic bag waste!

    I can only hope that we get to the day where a high gas tax reduces gasoline consumption to the point where we need to get other revenue streams to support our highway/etc. infrastructure. This is easy low-hanging fruit that should be plucked long before we consider other taxes, including mileage taxes or tolls.

  6. #6
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    So, wait, we can't think about an alternative before reality stares us right in the face?

    Remember, this is not even a draft for actual federal legislation... it's an experiment.

    And the roads have to be paved regardless. So I don't quite get why you're so up in arms about this. Unless it's now illegal to even think about controversial aspects.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    It won t happen. They have been trying to put this in place in Holland for the better part of the last decade and afaik it has been dropped now. Of course you have the first obstacle of American tax hysteria, but then you get the problem that actally building a system than can reliably track all vehicles is not so simple. Not to mention the fact that if such a system could be built and function, that is putting information about every move you make into the hands of government. Not a very popular notion either.

    What is utterly funny is how a PM tax is actually seen as a fair way to help people who can t be bothered to get a fuel economic car.
    Congratulations America

  8. #8
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    What is utterly funny is how a PM tax is actually seen as a fair way to help people who can t be bothered to get a fuel economic car.
    That can be worked around by a modifier based on car type - which you'll have to do anyway because a 40ton truck does a lot more damage to the roads than a VW Polo.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  9. #9
    A driving tax sure is a hell of a rube goldberg way to go about collecting taxes, but as we transition away from gasoline, I'm not seeing many options that don't drastically effect the upfront cost of certain items (like crazy high taxes on tires, replacement batteries, brakes, etc).
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    That can be worked around by a modifier based on car type - which you'll have to do anyway because a 40ton truck does a lot more damage to the roads than a VW Polo.
    That doesn't appear to be the intention of the people quoted in the OP.

    Anyway, I don't have any confidence there is a company capable of actually getting such a system to work, despite all the protestations to the contrary we'll no doubt get. My reply to them is; 'Yes, and we also thought Siemens could build tramways'.
    Congratulations America

  11. #11
    Gas Tax > Mileage Tax

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    It won t happen. They have been trying to put this in place in Holland for the better part of the last decade and afaik it has been dropped now. Of course you have the first obstacle of American tax hysteria, but then you get the problem that actally building a system than can reliably track all vehicles is not so simple. Not to mention the fact that if such a system could be built and function, that is putting information about every move you make into the hands of government. Not a very popular notion either.
    There are ways around the privacy problems, and honestly I think that part is overblown. The IRS gets into our privacy by knowing detailed information about our finances - income, investments, home value, etc. - so I don't get why how many miles we drive is such a big deal. And actually car insurance companies are piloting programs that are much more intrusive and follow your real-time driving habits and 'aggressiveness' to determine premiums.

    It's also eminently doable - I believe several states or municipalities are already piloting programs like this, and oddly enough people are less hysteric about this tax than a gas tax - even though it punishes more efficient cars compared to gas taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Gas Tax > Mileage Tax

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I agree that any tax on a negative externality eventually results in reduced revenue. This is exactly what we want - it's the best outcome possible! Trying to tax something that isn't bad and won't go away (like, say, income) is in general a bad idea but sometimes needs to be done to raise revenue. But before we start taxing good or neutral things, let's tax the bad things into (relative) extinction.
    I'm still saying I agree that right now, a gas tax is better. I'm concerned about things like this guy:

    Styles said policy makers need to address this issue “before there are 20 million electric vehicles on the road."

    "If we’ve waited that long, and all those folks have been used to driving those cars without paying any energy tax, then trying to change what we do is going to be a big disconnect,” he said.
    If we wait until we need something other than a gas tax, we might be kinda screwed. I can't imagine anything like this could be successfully implemented quickly. I'd expect it'd take years. Fortunately, right now, we have years. We probably have a good decade to get set up and decide exactly how to do it. I'd envision a slow start to things, with the initial actual 'tax' being a tiny pittance, just enough or maybe even less than enough to pay for the collection system itself - the idea being just to get things set up so that we can easily switch over when the time comes. Also no real rush here, if we don't start for another 5 years, we're probably okay, but if it takes 10, I think we're going to be in a bad spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    There are ways around the privacy problems, and honestly I think that part is overblown. The IRS gets into our privacy by knowing detailed information about our finances - income, investments, home value, etc. - so I don't get why how many miles we drive is such a big deal.
    If I ever decide to drive across the country to commit a crime, I don't want them to have an easier time than they already do dismissing my alibi.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    There are ways around the privacy problems, and honestly I think that part is overblown. The IRS gets into our privacy by knowing detailed information about our finances - income, investments, home value, etc. - so I don't get why how many miles we drive is such a big deal. And actually car insurance companies are piloting programs that are much more intrusive and follow your real-time driving habits and 'aggressiveness' to determine premiums.
    The privacy part is the problem. I don't want insurance companies (or auto manufacturers) installing black boxes in our cars, either.

    We need a comprehensive national energy policy first. Until we have that, everything else is just fiddling with bits 'n pieces.

  15. #15
    um... cars already have black boxes, some models started as far back as 96...

    they aren't GPS level recorders, but they have done wonders answering important questions for why/how certain accidents have happened.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  16. #16
    Yes, I know that. They should at least let the buyer know when one is in their car....and let people opt-out if they want.

  17. #17
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Yes, I know that. They should at least let the buyer know when one is in their car....and let people opt-out if they want.
    Yes, let's opt out of ABS, airbags and seatbelts as well, why we're at it!
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Yes, let's opt out of ABS, airbags and seatbelts as well, why we're at it!
    I didn't say that. But it's one thing to know if a monitoring device is in your car when bought, and another to find out after an insurance company subpoenas the data for a court trial.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    If we wait until we need something other than a gas tax, we might be kinda screwed. I can't imagine anything like this could be successfully implemented quickly. I'd expect it'd take years. Fortunately, right now, we have years. We probably have a good decade to get set up and decide exactly how to do it. I'd envision a slow start to things, with the initial actual 'tax' being a tiny pittance, just enough or maybe even less than enough to pay for the collection system itself - the idea being just to get things set up so that we can easily switch over when the time comes. Also no real rush here, if we don't start for another 5 years, we're probably okay, but if it takes 10, I think we're going to be in a bad spot.
    Tolls are an easier fix that's less intrusive, doesn't disrupt traffic much (now that electronic systems are in place), and is largely already implemented across large parts of the nation's infrastructure.

    Also, I'm not sure that we should be charging a use fee for our infrastructure. It's a common good that generally improves commerce, so there's a lot of knock-on effects that benefit people even if they aren't heavily using our infrastructure. Perhaps a better system would be folding into general spending and revenue instead of having a separate trust (this means we could fund it from more general consumption taxes and the like instead of having a cumbersome mileage system for no particular reason). I'm not 100% sure on this, though, since overuse could still be a problem. More generally, we need to change urban planning and zoning and the like to reduce our reliance on highways, which would lower our infrastructure costs and transportation costs for people.

    I feel like there's fundamentally there's two different goals we're talking about here. One is reducing environmental and economic effects of driving, particularly wrt gasoline. The other is adequately funding infrastructure investment and maintenance (something the US is woefully behind in lately). The first is best addressed with a gas tax. The second is not so clear - but a mileage tax may not be the best way to fund it.

    There's also other problems. The current federal formula for distributing tax revenues from the fuel tax punishes states that reduce commuting times and gas burnt. It's a stupid system that should focus on smart infrastructure development rather than giving the most wasteful states money to spend.

    I personally think that the way to address our infrastructure costs isn't to levy a random mileage tax - it doesn't assess the quality of those miles in affecting congestion and the like, and isn't a negative externality per se. Rather, once fuel tax receipts drop, they should phase in congestion taxes. They've done this in a few places (London, Stockholm, the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway) and essentially charge a premium to use infrastructure in high demand. The funds can then go to expand and maintain infrastructure. For example, there's an express lane going from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem that either acts as an HOV lane (high occupancy vehicle, for those of you not in the US; I don't know if the terms are the same elsewhere), a bus lane, or has a variable toll based on travel times to ensure maximal usage. It relieves some of the congestion on the main highway lanes while providing incentives for using public transit, carpooling, or charging a premium for express travel. This is the kind of incentive we want and need.

    Then there's other problems. Urban parking in the US (and elsewhere) is incredibly underpriced - either free or very, very cheap. A large part of urban congestion is supposedly due to cars looking for a place to park. If you jack up the prices of street parking to an equilibrium value (perhaps using a dynamic pricing algorithm?), people will go to alternatives - pay lots, parking near public transit outside the city center, etc. This reduces congestion and might even free up valuable lanes for driving rather than parking.

    My point is that let's tax the things that are actually bad about the system before taxing things that are benign. We can modify poor behavior while still funding our infrastructure.

    One more point: the energy grid is obviously going to come under more stress as we electrify private transport in the country. There's multiple ways to solve this, but again we come to two separate problems: infrastructure funding and pollution. Pollution can be dealt with by a carbon tax or other pollution tax, which is the least of all evils to deal with things, and doesn't subsidize a specific form of cleaner energy (something that is a REALLY REALLY bad idea to do economically). Infrastructure spending can be done by providing incentives for off-peak consumption through taxes or lower rates (e.g. only charge your car when no one else is using the grid) and in general bringing energy prices into a more dynamic pricing scheme than the rigid setup currently in place in most US utilities.

    If I ever decide to drive across the country to commit a crime, I don't want them to have an easier time than they already do dismissing my alibi.
    You do realize that mileage taxes don't need to do more than look at your odometer every month or whatever, right? We don't need some GPS chip tracking your car's every movement - that would be a gross violation of privacy.

  20. #20
    Wiggin, the problem with separating the revenues and costs of a road system is that the federal government won't really know where to spend the money... not that they are very good at it now. I'll just mention again the example of Vermont seemingly getting way too much road construction money from the Stimulus with barely any benefit, while eastern MA was stuck in traffic jams (even though we did get a lot of highways resurfaced in 09) -- barely any new highways or on/off ramps.

  21. #21
    Cool thing about mileage tax is it gives you a more proportional tax to your wear and tear on the road. Does a car with bad gas mileage really need to pay a higher % for road repairs than others? That said gas tax to some degree measured/taxes mileage already, if everyone had the same gas mileage would be perfect. Also a gas tax takes out structural issues in calculating that tax for each person.

    I think though for those claiming it won't help curb gas consumption, their wrong, I think it'll have a very similar effect to taxing gas directly. It would encourage car pooling, in driving efficiently, and less frequently. However, I think a gas tax would do a better job, because of the structural problems in measuring mileage used for everyone would pose. When you car pool you can easily divide up gas costs and be done with it. Do you plan to keep track of mileage and divide up mileage tax? Definitely could. But it's much more troublesome. So I favor the gas tax solution by far, even though it does punish those who drive older cars, and not neccessarily those who place more wear on roads.

    However like we said we need to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient cars anyway.

    "If we’ve waited that long, and all those folks have been used to driving those cars without paying any energy tax, then trying to change what we do is going to be a big disconnect,” he said.
    Can't we just put this black box in electric cars and tax their energy gain? Or raise taxes somewhere else all together to pay for road repairs.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon View Post
    Cool thing about mileage tax is it gives you a more proportional tax to your wear and tear on the road. Does a car with bad gas mileage really need to pay a higher % for road repairs than others?
    Generally speaking, cars with poorer gas milage usually end up heavier, so yeah them paying a higher fee for road repair would be appropriate. Are you claiming that an 18 wheeler doesn't do any more damage to a road than a Fiat 500?

    If you wanted a mileage tax that was tiered by weight, I could understand that. Our toll system already works like that (to a degree), as does my state's tag renewal. my tags are coming up due next month and my van costs almost twice as much to renew as my car Thats $350 I won't get to spend on a new Nintendo 3DS...
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  23. #23
    $350 for a license plate? That's outrageous. Is FL putting mini-vans in the truck category or something?

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    In Holland we have a special tax on the ownership of cars; it s levied at the first sale and is significantly higher than the already significant VAT. But they have decided to phase it out over the next few years. The plan was pay per km, but that was dropped about a year ago.

    Our tax system was great for Brits who wanted a car on the cheap, pre tax prices were much lower in Holland than in neighbouring countries and if you exported the car there you didn t have to pay the ownership tax. (And yes you could buy cars with right hand wheels too).
    Congratulations America

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    $350 for a license plate? That's outrageous. Is FL putting mini-vans in the truck category or something?
    THat's what I was wondering. Here in VA my SUV's license plates only cost $48 for one year. Personal property tax on it, however, is more like $280.....

  26. #26
    Tag is $20 (or so, the letter is downstairs and I don't wanna get out of bed), taxes are another $150ish.

    Oh and I have to go get an emissions inspection first.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I actually agree, but I don't understand why raising gas taxes is such a third rail. If done properly, it literally has no downsides.
    I'm surprised this confuses you. It's clearly a simple cultural artifact.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    THat's what I was wondering. Here in VA my SUV's license plates only cost $48 for one year. Personal property tax on it, however, is more like $280.....
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Tag is $20 (or so, the letter is downstairs and I don't wanna get out of bed), taxes are another $150ish.

    Oh and I have to go get an emissions inspection first.
    Personal property tax on a car paid annually?

    We pay $38 for tag renewal, plus annual emissions testing. That's it. Other taxes are in maintenance items (like disposing of used oil or tires---even for lawn mowers), and we have the PA turnpike toll fees, and gas tax at the pump.

  29. #29
    We have to pay Road Tax, which is an annual tax to be able to drive on public roads. This is despite a massive gas tax.

  30. #30
    Why not start the transition by putting the milage tax on electric cars now, and have the gas tax?
    The only problem I see, is that it could slow the electric car growth, but if the gas tax is higher, it might curb that. Then in time, the mileage tax can slowly be raised where it needs to be as they become the predominate vehicle.

    I just think you have to slowly get people used to the idea, and make it not hurt.

    ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •