'miles driven' tax

[WalterMitty]

ok let's say the state puts a chip in your inspection sticker to monitor the miles you drive annually.

you get 12k miles free.  anything over 12k would be taxed at 5 cents per mile.

the benefit would be that people would curtail their driving which means less greenhouse gas.  secondly, the money could be used for public transport, development of green technologies and infrastructure improvements.

[Redalgo]

I would be opposed to this. Mass transit is not readily available everywhere and some people must drive longer distances than others out of necessity. It would impact the residents of some states and communities more than others - though perhaps you could persuade me with your rationale?

[TJ in Oregon]

No. Having the government put a chip in your car and follow where you drive is just not a good idea because it would freak too many people out about privacy. Also this really sticks it to people living in rural areas and truck drivers, many of whom can't afford a higher tax.

If you want to punish people for driving a lot, it makes much more sense and is way easier to raise the gasoline tax anyway.

[WalterMitty]

the gasoline tax is regressive and punishes the poor.

the miles driven tax would hit suburbanites who commute very long distances the hardest.  then maybe theyd change their polluting habits?

[TJ in Oregon]

the gasoline tax is regressive and punishes the poor.

the miles driven tax would hit suburbanites who commute very long distances the hardest.  then maybe theyd change their polluting habits?

If a gasoline tax is regressive then so is a miles driven tax. Those two things are kinda linked.

[greenforest32]

A per-mile tax makes more sense than the gas tax when you consider electric vehicles.

The per-mile tax should also factor in weight though. It wouldn't make sense to charge the same rate for a mile driven by a motorcycle and a mile driven by a big rig when they put different amounts of wear on the road.

As far as I know Oregon is planning on phasing out the gas tax in favor of a miles-driven tax. Legislation was introduced in the last few sessions but didn't go anywhere, but they'll be back in the 2013/2014 sessions.

Some background/interesting reading: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/ruftf.shtml

[Franzl]

Just increase the gasoline tax to reasonable levels - much easier and more sensible.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I support no taxes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No new middle-class taxes or tax increases- especially during a weak economy.

[WalterMitty]

to make it less regressive than the gas tax, you could give an income tax credit or annual rebate to those making under x dollars per year.

[TJ in Oregon]

to make it less regressive than the gas tax, you could give an income tax credit or annual rebate to those making under x dollars per year.

You could also have a gas tax and do those things.

[WillK]

ok let's say the state puts a chip in your inspection sticker to monitor the miles you drive annually.

you get 12k miles free.  anything over 12k would be taxed at 5 cents per mile.

the benefit would be that people would curtail their driving which means less greenhouse gas.  secondly, the money could be used for public transport, development of green technologies and infrastructure improvements.

Why give 12K miles for free?

[WillK]

I would be opposed to this. Mass transit is not readily available everywhere and some people must drive longer distances than others out of necessity. It would impact the residents of some states and communities more than others - though perhaps you could persuade me with your rationale?

People have made choices about where to live and where to drive. 
Those choices relate to costs on society. 
It should impact some communities more than others.

[WillK]

the gasoline tax is regressive and punishes the poor.

I do not think this has been adequately proven.

[Yelnoc]

Awful idea.  If we're that desperate for money, try taking it from the Haves, rather than a largely middle class group of commuters.

[LastVoter]

I think a moratorium on construction of suburbs would be a better idea.

[dead0man]

Wait wait wait....you want to make this a FEDERAL thing?  eeegads man no.  If your own stupid state wants, it, whatever, but no way would that work everywhere.

the gasoline tax is regressive and punishes the poor.

I do not think this has been adequately proven.

Do people that make 10 times as much as you tend to drive 10 times as much as you?  Do people that make $25k a year drive half as much as people that make $50k?  It's pretty clearly a regressive tax.  Not as bad as "sin" taxes of course (what is?), but still pretty painful to the poor (relatively speaking of course).

[LastVoter]

Or a luxury tax on overly big new cars.

[dead0man]

Or a luxury tax on overly big new cars.

There is one, it's called the Gas Guzzler Tax, stupidly it doesn't include SUVs, which is why they are everywhere now-a-days and a big reason why big cars are no more.

If you really want to help the environment when it comes to cars, the absolute BEST thing you could do is get more of the ill maintained older cars off the road.  Not your uncle's 65 Mustang that he only drives 3 times a year.  The 78 LTD driven by that grandma that lives down the street is the problem.  One of those dumps more crap in the air than a 100 new cars.  Give her a few grand to trade it in on something a little more modern and we'd help a lot.

(not that car pollution is a huge issue overall anymore)

[LastVoter]

Or a luxury tax on overly big new cars.

There is one, it's called the Gas Guzzler Tax, stupidly it doesn't include SUVs, which is why they are everywhere now-a-days and a big reason why big cars are no more.

If you really want to help the environment when it comes to cars, the absolute BEST thing you could do is get more of the ill maintained older cars off the road.  Not your uncle's 65 Mustang that he only drives 3 times a year.  The 78 LTD driven by that grandma that lives down the street is the problem.  One of those dumps more crap in the air than a 100 new cars.  Give her a few grand to trade it in on something a little more modern and we'd help a lot.

(not that car pollution is a huge issue overall anymore)

Well the goal here is to decrease fuel consumption not pollution since US mostly has that covered. Since it's very possible we will not be able to replace oil in next 10 years as the demand rises. Of course that would hurt the American manufacturer etc...

[dead0man]

Increasing efficiency means smaller cars and newer cars, it would still be helpful to get grandma out of her old Ford.  But yes, if you want less gas used, the best way to do that is raise the price of gas.  End the subsidies, increase the tax, let the market do it's thing, let OPEC do what they want without putting pressure on them over the price of oil.  (we could and should still put pressure on them over their human rights abuses)

[LastVoter]

Increasing efficiency means smaller cars and newer cars, it would still be helpful to get grandma out of her old Ford.  But yes, if you want less gas used, the best way to do that is raise the price of gas.  End the subsidies, increase the tax, let the market do it's thing, let OPEC do what they want without putting pressure on them over the price of oil.  (we could and should still put pressure on them over their human rights abuses)

Well the other point is to not make the tax regressive, which would be best by taxing luxury vehicles with low mpg(<25), since working class is a lot more likely to buy used cars. Throw an $5k tax on any new truck or SUV, and you probably have the same effect as having a .50-.75 cent tax per gallon(depending on how long the car lasts). Of course this could backfire if the working class decided to pay more for used trucks or SUV's and/or grandma's demand doesn't decrease for the new ford. tl; dr need to do public research on how they would consumer act to a new tax.

[dead0man]

That's going to be hard (if not impossible) to get passed into law.  Maybe you'd have a chance if you put in some loopholes to the truck tax for farmers, construction workers and such.  Nobody needs an SUV unless you go off road frequently and need to carry covered cargo or people while you do it, you'd basically kill that market (something I'd like to see happen, but not this way).  And like I said earlier, there already is a gas guzzler tax on vehicles (<22.5mpg I think....confirmed).  You could probably get away with raising that number up to 25.  There is also the CAFE tax on car makers, but that has had less than stellar results as well.  From wiki

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The SUV is the main reason for the decline in avg mpg since 1987.  Americans like big cars.  Because the Gas Guzzler tax doesn't effect trucks/SUVs, the people that like big vehicles have moved on to them (mainly SUVs).  So you're correct to aim your proposed legislation at them, if only there was a way to aim it so that it didn't hit the people that actually use these vehicles for their intended purpose and only hit the trendy douchebags that need a new Yukon because their neighbor just got one.

(if you can't tell, I freaking hate SUVs and other tall vehicles, especially when a 110lb soccer mom tries to park one)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We have a better tax here. It's called the gas tax.

[dead0man]

We have a better tax here. It's called the gas tax.

Every state has that, you are "winning" though.  wiki

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd have NO problem at all if we increased the gas tax and used the money to fix the roads and bridges, especially if we need to repair our roads and bridges (which on slow news cycles the media likes to remind us will kill us all eventually).