This would suck for ski day trippers and long commuters

[speden]

Again, if you're charging purely for mile and nothing else, there's no reason not to tax bicycles and pedestrians as well, other than it would accentuate how absurd it is. Also, the federal government only has authority over roadways as they relate to interstate commerce. Yes, Court decisions over the last 200+ years have destroyed the meaning of interstate commerce, but realistically they shouldn't touch anything other than US highways and Interstates.

Well they already have a federal gas tax (18.4 cents a gallon), so we're paying the feds for driving down rural roads already. I don't see taxing by the mile versus taxing by the gallon as fundamentally different. I agree it would be absurd to tax bicycles this way, but it seems like it would be a more fair way to tax cars than toll roads. I get robbed using the Mass pike to pay for the big dig, when the real beneficiaries of it live north and south of Boston and get a free ride.

Again, back to the commerce clause, the US government has the responsibility of regulating and promoting interstate commerce. You don't need a tax based on road use to do that. In fact, it's stupid to do so, because the end effect is a negative impact on that commerce it's trying to promote. No reason not to use the income taxes currently in place to do the same thing, other than it makes for a more centralized tax collection and makes people even more aware of how much tax they're actually paying.

Any kind of sales tax like the gas tax is going to be very regressive. The poor guy with the long commute in his old gas guzzler gets walloped when he can't afford it. People like that would probably be taxed less if a mileage tax replaced the gas tax since they can't afford a high mileage car.

It would be less regressive to fund roads with income taxes since low income people don't pay income taxes, but I don't think that would be fair. A lot of people live in cities and don't even drive, so why should they pay as much as someone who drives all the time and wears out the roads. A mileage tax seems like the most fair approach since the people that use the roads would be the ones paying for them. Granted the government will use the funds for other stuff too, but that's inevitable with any type of tax.

 

[mondeo]

Well they already have a federal gas tax (18.4 cents a gallon), so we're paying the feds for driving down rural roads already. I don't see taxing by the mile versus taxing by the gallon as fundamentally different. I agree it would be absurd to tax bicycles this way, but it seems like it would be a more fair way to tax cars than toll roads. I get robbed using the Mass pike to pay for the big dig, when the real beneficiaries of it live north and south of Boston and get a free ride.

And I don't agree with the federal gas tax as a means of revenue generation to begin with. There are too many taxes to raise money that all goes into the same bucket at the end of the day, just to hide how much everyone is actually paying and to make increases more palatable. But at least it's somewhat proportional to impact on roadways, heavier cars are going to be less fuel efficient and do more damage to the road.

As part of a comprehensive energy policy, that's a different story.

 

[Riverskier]

I think the transportation departments are just looking ahead at the increased CAFE requirements and electric cars, etc. and realizing that five to ten years out, the gas tax revenues aren't going to bring in enough dough. Implementing something like this will take years, so they're starting to lay the groundwork now. The cost of the equipment needed is probably small relative to the amount of money it would bring in. Constructing and hiring people for toll booths is super expensive, but that doesn't stop them from building those.

Toll booths bring in revenues that don't exist without them. The government is already receiving tax revenues in the form of the gas tax. If 5-10 years down the road the current gas tax revenues aren't sufficient, then why not simply raise them? Seems easier then implementing a costly new system full of potential problems. Just curious, in what way do you think this system is potentially better than the current gas tax, as it seems we are both in agreement that they essentially accomplish the same thing?

 

[dmc]

“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.”

Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..

 

[mondeo]

Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..

Under that logic, message boards would cease to exist, though.

 

[deadheadskier]

“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.”

Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..

I had heard this as well. That it was misinformation passed around by the right wing.

 

[dmc]

Under that logic, message boards would cease to exist, though.

yeah.. But you know if I were president and i was in the middle of a huge budget crisis - i'd look at any an every way to increase revenue.

thats all this is.. Another option of many...

Well that and a way to make the president look bad..

 

[WJenness]

Agree with DMC re: not being an administration proposal and that we should relax...

However: There is a SERIOUS issue in paying for road and bridge maintenance and repairs in this country (See I-35W bridge in MN a few years ago)...

The electric vehicle trend (Nissan Leaf) as well as other alternative fuels (CNG, etc)... those vehicles don't pay that 18.4 cents per gallon that most cars do... Yet, they still use the roads.

Something has to change.

Also, the last time the federal gas tax was raised was 1993. Almost 20 years ago. Cars are heavier AND more fuel efficient than they were in 1993... Inflicting MORE damage on the roads while generating LESS revenue. Additionally, when you account for inflation, that 18.4 cents per gallon doesn't go nearly as far as it used to.

Something's gotta change, and fast.

-w

 

[dmc]

Something's gotta change, and fast.

How about we shift oil subsidies to renewable energy!

 

[WJenness]

How about we shift oil subsidies to renewable energy!

A great idea.

But that fixes our roads, how?

-w

 

[dmc]

A great idea.

But that fixes our roads, how?

-w

I got nuthin... But it would be cool... I cant WAIT to get an electric car someday..

 

[bigbog]

A silly idea IMHO. When will the craziness stop?

Ditto...

 

[mondeo]

Agree with DMC re: not being an administration proposal and that we should relax...

However: There is a SERIOUS issue in paying for road and bridge maintenance and repairs in this country (See I-35W bridge in MN a few years ago)...

The electric vehicle trend (Nissan Leaf) as well as other alternative fuels (CNG, etc)... those vehicles don't pay that 18.4 cents per gallon that most cars do... Yet, they still use the roads.

Something has to change.

Also, the last time the federal gas tax was raised was 1993. Almost 20 years ago. Cars are heavier AND more fuel efficient than they were in 1993... Inflicting MORE damage on the roads while generating LESS revenue. Additionally, when you account for inflation, that 18.4 cents per gallon doesn't go nearly as far as it used to.

Something's gotta change, and fast.

-w

I'd like to see the cost-benefit that says our roads are actually underfunded. Just because a road is in bad shape doesn't mean it makes sense to repair it. If you can stretch the life of a road from 15 years to 20, does the 33% reduction in construction costs manifest itself in equal or greater combined road and car maintenance over that 5 year period? How much do we have to spend, nationally, on bridge repair to make the failure rate 1 in 40 years, 1 in 20 years, 1 in 10, and does that offset the costs of those bridge failures?

Really not worried about a bridge failure now and then, or a few extra potholes to get patched. Ever play SimCity? The whole issue reminds me of the highway department advisor. You'd increase the funding by 2x, then cut it by 25%, and all of a sudden the sky is falling.

 

[riverc0il]

You can see the appeal of this from the politician side.... what politician that values their seat is going to push for a higher gas tax? But the gas tax already exists and it would be far more efficient and make far more sense to just increase the gas tax.

Taxing by mile is unfair to those with long commutes or those of us that support the economy by driving long distances to recreate (or those that drive long distances to visit family, travel, vacation, etc.). It makes it so that there is no incentive to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (and it increases taxes because more efficient vehicles contribute less through the gas tax, again you can see why government might be pro mile tax).

You could say that folks that drive more distance impact the road infrastructure more. But that would be incorrect. The roads are most impacted by heavy vehicles. How about a progressive tax by mile effecting trailers, trucks, and SUVs more severely than cars? You would have to do that if you propose a per mile tax to support road ways (in a far way).

Those that travel more should contribute more but the gas tax already does that within reason. It penalizes those that have less efficient vehicles. But I don't see anything wrong with that as that is a personal decision and those that can afford lower MPG vehicles can certainly afford a little extra tax as the cheapest vehicles are often the most efficient.

 

[speden]

Toll booths bring in revenues that don't exist without them. The government is already receiving tax revenues in the form of the gas tax. If 5-10 years down the road the current gas tax revenues aren't sufficient, then why not simply raise them? Seems easier then implementing a costly new system full of potential problems. Just curious, in what way do you think this system is potentially better than the current gas tax, as it seems we are both in agreement that they essentially accomplish the same thing?

The potential I see is that it's something that would be easier to administer and maintain in the long run. With oil already starting to run out, other fuels are going to be entering the picture. People want to move away from using Saudi black gold. There's going to be more use of stuff like natural gas to fuel trucks and buses, plug in electric hybrids, bio fuels, or who knows what in ten years. A simple gas tax will be harder to collect when not everyone is using gas. Then they'd have to figure out a fair way to tax electricity, natural gas, etc. when it's also used for heating and appliances. It would be hard to do.

How about the guy recharging his car with solar panels on his roof, should he get free use of the roads while some low income people get hammered by a raised gas tax on some cast off beater they drive. With a use tax like a per mile tax, you can also know who you're taxing and what kind of vehicle you're taxing. You can apply a different tax rate for heavier vehicles, or give tax breaks to low income people. With the current gas tax, you have no idea who or what is using the gas, so everything gets hit equally. They tax diesel higher than regular gas because they want to hit truckers, but some cars run on diesel so they are an unintended victim of the gas sales tax. That kind of thing could be avoided with a mileage tax.

I'm not saying they should go this route, but I think if someone told me it was my job to figure out how to fund the roads and bridges for the next 25 years, a mileage tax might look like the best option.

 

[Glenn]

I think the transportation departments are just looking ahead at the increased CAFE requirements and electric cars, etc. and realizing that five to ten years out, the gas tax revenues aren't going to bring in enough dough. Implementing something like this will take years, so they're starting to lay the groundwork now. The cost of the equipment needed is probably small relative to the amount of money it would bring in. Constructing and hiring people for toll booths is super expensive, but that doesn't stop them from building those.

This.

Well, sorta. I don't think we'll see a lot of electric cars 5-10 years out. Maybe a million or two. Hybrids have been out for 10 years...and they're still 1% or less of the population..but I'm getting off track.

The Government is greedy. The government is a large monopoly. (Think about that the next time they go after a private company for not having any competition. Who does the goverment have for competition?) They're seeing less use of gasoline as a double edged sword. If we use less gas, there's less revenue. In perfect world, the government would properly allocate funds from the gasoline tax to fix roads. I can't figure out how the hell they can take a cut from the billions of gallons sold in the US...and we still have crumbling roads. First order of business should be properly allocating the funds. I think that would go a long way in regards to getting our roads up to snuff.

Electric cars are neat, but I think right now, they're more of a novelty. I think we've got a long way to go before we can start using electric cars outside of an urban environment. And remember kids...these things take time to develop. You can throw a few billion dollars at problem, but that doesn't mean someone is going to come out with game changing iPadesque version of an electric car in 16 months.

Love it or hate it, our society is mobile. Not everyone can walk to work, or take a train, or carpool, or ride a bike or whathaveyou. And not everyone (myself included) has any desire to live in the city.

 

[Warp Daddy]

This.
I can't figure out how the hell they can take a cut from the billions of gallons sold

Answer:

With 3 yep 3 UNDECLARED wars in separate theatres of operation AND the cost of Homeland Security, BORDER Patrols and TSA's all of which were HYPER expensive add-ons to the base budget originally have had to be ANNUALIZED and each have EXPANDED beyond the original missions.

Moreover couple that with the demographic bubble of Boomers drawing both SS and Medicare and given the medicaid problems associated with it's pretty easy to see where the problem is Glenn. Roads compared to these priorities are not seen as tier one priorities.

The SS problem really started back in the 80's when the THEN power structure decided to Borrow the SS trust fund $$ for Tax cuts an dthen again in the mid 90's when we had a surplus in hand from the Dot com run up , OUR congress refused to RESTORE the $$ to the Trust Fund

So in essence this issue was Birthed in the 80's

 

[mondeo]

The SS problem really started back in the 80's when the THEN power structure decided to Borrow the SS trust fund $$ for Tax cuts an dthen again in the mid 90's when we had a surplus in hand from the Dot com run up , OUR congress refused to RESTORE the $$ to the Trust Fund

So in essence this issue was Birthed in the 80's

Nah, the SS and medicare problem started at its birth, when the age of retirement wasn't indexed to life expectancy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

If the retirement age now was 77, there wouldn't be an issue. Also, the philosophy that it's part of a retirement plan instead of welfare for those who can't otherwise afford to retire and can't work.

Any other tangents here we can find?

 

[wa-loaf]

Nah, the SS and medicare problem started at its birth, when the age of retirement wasn't indexed to life expectancy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

If the retirement age now was 77, there wouldn't be an issue. Also, the philosophy that it's part of a retirement plan instead of welfare for those who can't otherwise afford to retire and can't work.

Any other tangents here we can find?

The lengthening life expectancy is due more to fewer deaths among infants and children, than people actually living that much longer.

 

[mondeo]

The lengthening life expectancy is due more to fewer deaths among infants and children, than people actually living that much longer.

Ok, index it to life expectancy of those reaching adulthood. It would still be a couple years higher, which is a big difference.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

The trend is pretty linear. Projecting back to 1935 and forward to 2011, the age of retirement now should be 71.5 instead of 67. If you figure 30% of the people in that gap would continue working until 71.5, that's abot a 3% increase in tax base as well. Huge, huge difference on the balance sheet.

I'm still haven't figured out the idea behind paying for the previous generation's retirement so your kids can pay for yours. Oh, wait. It's called a Ponzi scheme. Got it.