Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes. "I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver who participated in a recent pilot program. The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial incentive for buying efficient vehicles. But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted. Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007. The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways, bridges and transit programs in good shape. But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with manufacturers." Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles. In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax. James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota. "There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he said. Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of raising gasoline taxes. The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax. Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland area, proved the idea could work. Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage. The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline taxes. The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small — "pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said. But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles. For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed. Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said he and his task force have assured people that the program does not track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies. "I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers. Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. "It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax needs to be updated." Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea but said it was worth consideration. "We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just isn't working." |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Tim Howard" > wrote in message . .. > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline > By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer – > Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET > > > > PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways > to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much > gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in > 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon > lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids > could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with > gasoline taxes. How about taxing based on a combination of gasoline per gallon, with a multiplier related to the gross vehicle weight, to account for the real cause of road deterioration - - tonnage. Prius driver. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Jan 7, 10:26*pm, "Chuck Olson" >
wrote: > "Tim Howard" > wrote in message > > . .. > > > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline > > By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer – > > Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET > > > PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways > > to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much > > gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in > > 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon > > lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids > > could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with > > gasoline taxes. > > How about taxing based on a combination of gasoline per gallon, with a > multiplier related to the gross vehicle weight, to account for the real > cause of road deterioration - - tonnage. > > Prius driver. I was thinking along the same lines, but tried to throw in a factor for tire footprint, sending me off for a glSS OF WINE..... |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Ah, "it's not fair" is the great rallying cry of the masses. It really
means "make somebody else pay for the benefits I enjoy." The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax. The problem with the proposals discussed in the article is the intrusive notion of the government putting a GPS system in your car and monitoring where you drive- which is none of their business. A simple odometer reader would be far more reasonable, but even this introduces problems with how to bill and collect those revenues. A whole new government administration would be required. The damage drivers do to the environment from burning fossil fuels is based on how much fuel they burn, not on how many miles they drive. A "carbon tax" for funding addressing the problems thus created makes sense and appropriately places the burden on people who drive inefficient gas guzzlers (with apologies to poor folks who can only afford cheap, used and generally boat-like cars). The gas tax is paid up front and is practically invisible to the consumer, which makes it easier to collect. The decline in gas tax revenues is not due solely to people driving more fuel efficient cars, however, it is largely due to people just driving less- billions of miles less in 2008 than in 2007. This has the effect of reducing wear and tear on the roadways, which in turn should reduce governmental costs and reduce the burden on the gas tax collection system; however. locally at least much of the damage to the roads is caused by weather and that will proceed apace whether people drive or not. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On 2009-01-08, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> The damage drivers do to the environment from burning fossil fuels is > based on how much fuel they burn, not on how many miles they drive. A > "carbon tax" for funding addressing the problems thus created makes > sense and appropriately places the burden on people who drive > inefficient gas guzzlers (with apologies to poor folks who can only > afford cheap, used and generally boat-like cars). A carbon tax to 'save the environment' makes sense in the same way a blood sacrifice to the sun god for good crop yields made sense. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:26:59 -0800, "Chuck Olson"
> wrote: > >"Tim Howard" > wrote in message ... >> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline >> By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer – >> Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET >> >> >> >> PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways >> to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much >> gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in >> 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon >> lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids >> could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with >> gasoline taxes. > >How about taxing based on a combination of gasoline per gallon, with a >multiplier related to the gross vehicle weight, to account for the real >cause of road deterioration - - tonnage. > >Prius driver. > Until you reach the level of very large truck there isn't much actual road damage from simply driving a vehicle on the road. The current $$$ per Gallon gas tax is probably the fairest tax ever put on a product. There is no reason to change it other then it needs to be increased simply to keep up with changes in fuel economy and inflation. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles,
one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas taxes for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right? The one that gets 35 MPG has only two seats, the other seats seven. I have a wife and four children, all of us can NOT travel in the one that gets 20 MPG. If I must take us all, 100 miles away, to my in-laws house. I need to make five trips in both directions with one, at total of ten trips and only one each way with the other, for a total of two. Now my question is, which situation would cause the most damage when I'm on that trip and should I sell the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG to pay the per mile tax and keep the other because I have a wife on four children or should just keep the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG and just leave my wife and kids, as well as Oregon? "Tim Howard" > wrote in message . .. > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline > By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer – > Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET > > > > PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways > to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much > gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in > 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon > lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids > could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with > gasoline taxes. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message ... > Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles, > one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the > other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas > taxes for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right? > You currently pay more in one than the other by virtue of one needing more gas than the other to get where you want to go. The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from 17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient, so fewer gas taxes are being collected.) If they go to a GPS-based taxation system, then presumably all motorists will be taxed on the distance they travel, not the gas it takes to get there -- as is the current tax model. Part of the current consumer motivation to move toward fuel efficient cars is causing the state to collect fewer taxes. If gas taxes are $0.20 per gallon, and your Suburban gets 15 mpg while a Yaris gets 30 mpg, the Surbuban will pay $1.33 in gas taxes to go 100 miles, the Yaris will pay $0.67. With a GPS-based system, all drivers can be forced to pay $1.33, defeating (at least in part) the whole purpose of buying a Yaris. |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > ... >> Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two >> vehicles, one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 >> MPG, and the other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I >> pay MORE in gas taxes for the one than the other, per 100 miles >> driven, right? >> > > You currently pay more in one than the other by virtue of one needing > more gas than the other to get where you want to go. > > The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more > efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from > 17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those > numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not > really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient, > so fewer gas taxes are being collected.) > > If they go to a GPS-based taxation system, then presumably all motorists > will be taxed on the distance they travel, not the gas it takes to get > there -- as is the current tax model. Part of the current consumer > motivation to move toward fuel efficient cars is causing the state to > collect fewer taxes. > > If gas taxes are $0.20 per gallon, and your Suburban gets 15 mpg while a > Yaris gets 30 mpg, the Surbuban will pay $1.33 in gas taxes to go 100 > miles, the Yaris will pay $0.67. With a GPS-based system, all drivers > can be forced to pay $1.33, defeating (at least in part) the whole > purpose of buying a Yaris. Right, and if we want to encourage people to who don't need Suburbans to drive Yarises, this is a bad idea. Far better to simply raise gas taxes until the required revenue for infrastructure maintenance is collected. Then, if someday we find that a significant portion of the fleet is running on fuels that aren't taxed, we should revisit this discussion. Until then, no need to make it any more complex than it has to be. nate (you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?) -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > nate > > (you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?) Yes. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com