Tax per gallon, or per mile?

If you did it per mile (to account for usage and wear on roads), wouldn't it also make sense to take the weight of the vehicle into account?

 

It would make more sense to tax per mile rather than the gallon, because gasoline consumption in this has declined slightly in the recent years. Or what about a sales tax on gasoline, like in California? I hear that they are making quite a bit of revenue due to high gasoline prices.

 

It makes more overall sense to tax per gallon. If consumption drops because people are using more fuel efficient vehicles, raising the tax is further pressure on the fuel hog drivers to switch.

The only case I see tax per mile making sense is vehicles that don't use conventional fuels such as plug in electrics. If they become a significant percentage of cars on the road, then they should be taxed per mile at some low rate that is also based on weight.

 

"Make sense," now there's an idea.

 

Tax structures vary considerably, but there's no reason a combination of methods shouldn't be employed. Here, among other places, both property taxes and income taxes are added to the funding mix, but that doesn't seem fair, since neither bear any relation to car use. Vehicles that are used more frequently should pay higher insurance premiums to reflect the increased risk. Heavier vehicles should pay more because they cause more wear and tear on the roads, incurring greater repair costs. Vehicles that pollute more should pay more, both as a penalty to encourage greater efficiency, and as a reflection of the increased costs borne by society. Aside from the differences in vehicles, some drivers are safer than others and should be rewarded for their good behaviour through insurance and licencing discounts.

 

Both fuel and mileage taxes have their place.

Per-gallon tax is more closely connected to weight, which causes more road damage, though that damage climbs much faster than fuel use. Per-mile is more closely connected to congestion, which drives the need for increasing capacity to carry more vehicles. An equitable tax system would use both.

An annual flat tax will be inequitable for those who roll up low yearly miles, which is likely to snag very many of the all-electric vehicles in the near future. In my region most of them are already paying a 'fuel tax' in the form of the 6% franchise fee or right-of-way surcharge that most area cities now levy on all utilities. While less than the state fuel tax on my Prius, it is not drastically so.

 

we need another tax like we need another hole in the head.

if obama can't find the 556 billion in the budget, then forget it. no more new spending unless it's paid for elsewhere.

what kind of a sick system is it that pushes all this green technology on people only to tax them for using it? and anyone who thinks that one tax will replace another is foolish. they'll add a tax to driving and they'll keep the tax on fuel. watch and see.

 

As long as drivers continue to pay less in vehicle/road/fuel taxes than the cost of building and maintaining the road infrastructre, they have little basis to complain. That includes those of us who drive the new green technology.

Too much of our transportation system cost is being paid by transfers from general funds, and by deficit spending.

 

Yes, and that would be the future.

It's likely that this will come into force at some point, but not for years yet. Gas taxes will just rise alongside increases in gas efficiency, to offset the reduction in taxes. Possibly as more EVs come on the road (but even, say, 5 years from now hardly anybody will own one) they'll need to put in mile-based taxes.

 

It should be per gallon. They should raise gas prices. Then if Electric cars get more than a 10% market share they should start taxing them per mile. I think is very fair for me to pay less road taxes than somebody who doesn't care a and drives a 15mpg truck cause He just wants to and yes if he needs the truck on the weekends to take his 100k boat out he really doesn't need it he wants it and should pay more taxes.

I think more road taxes is a good thing, I do work in Highway construction and it really does create alot of jobs, labor, paveing, Project managers, Foreman, heavy equipment operators, on road truck drivers, and me LOL GPS/Quality control/ machine control. Best of all everyone that drives gets to enjoy the end result and drive on it while sharing it with anyone who wants to drive on it.

 

it would be criminal if they made it by mile... criminal.

it means that pollution, oil dependency does not matter at all, that only tax money matters... because then someone who buys efficient vehicle would be penalized for their decision.

 

How about a weighted function of weight and pollution produced.

Something like $100 * pounds (GVW) over legal limit * miles + $1 * pounds (GVW) * miles + $1 * pounds of CO2 + $10 * pounds of other pollutants.

* I seem to remember reading that the damage for overweight vehicles was around 100 times more than other trucks.

 

Gas tax should be the only way.Heavy vehicles put more wear on the road and consume more fuel thus paying more taxes.Smaller vehicles put less wear on the road and should pay less tax as they do now.Tax Tax Tax they never seem to get enough.When I retired I had to adjust my spending to match my reduced income.I can not demand more from my pension plan if I decide I want more.Maybe I can demand my more wealthy neighbors to help pay for my wants.Looks like the government will find a way to get back any savings the prius gives us.At least the air we breath will be cleaner.

 

Bush couldn't find the money, either. In fact, he transferred at least $8 BILLION dollars from the "general" fund to cover the shortfall.

If people aren't willing to pay more gas taxes to keep the ever expanding infrastructure updated, we'll all be walking again because the roads will be in such poor shape we won't be able to drive on them without doing considerable damage to the vehicles.

This is one of the few taxes that I actually support, as by law, it's ONLY allowed to go into the transportation fund, which is used to help upkeep roads. This actual tax was last increased in 1997 to 18.4 cents/gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents/gallon on diesel. In fact, I would favor raising it 1 cent/gallon every other month for the next two years.

 

A tax on mileage makes no sense because lighter, more economical vehicles would be subsidizing larger heavier vehicles. I can also see how exemptions for certain commercial vehicles would be allowed (via lobbyists for special interests) so that the average Joe would pay a proportionately higher share than commercial vehicles whose weight and annual mileage account for higher road maintenance issues.

If gas was taxed like everything else, as a percentage of each gallon's cost, and not a flat amount per gallon, then the revenue created would be proportionate to how much is used. And since heavier vehicles use more gas, they would end up paying their fair share. Also as the price of gas goes up, the revenue created would go up too, even if consumption flattened out or goes down slightly because of the higher cost.

 

Deleted

 

What about eliminating all gas taxes,state and fed. and replace it with a national gas sales tax.Everyone would share in the burden that way.

 

I admit that I have not read all of the posts in this thread...but...this is the first response that "hits the nail on the head".

Our Congress and President must learn that we, as a country, must live live within our means. The Federal Government spends $1.00 for every $0.40 they take in, putting us deeper and deeper in debt. Out National Debt is now $14+ trillion dollars and growing at $1+ billion dollars a week.

There are claims in some Conservative circles that the Government's reason for this unabated spending is to eventually overwhelm and topple the United States' economy and overthrow the existing Republic (not Republican...but our system of government) and replace it with a Socialist type of system that espouses a system of Redistribution of Wealth. Have you noticed that the majority of President Obama's cabinet and advisers are considered "Progressive", which is another term for Socialist or Communist? The main problem with this is that sooner than later, we will run out of other peoples wealth to re-distribute and we all (except the bureaucrats) will then be worse off than we are today.

While I realize that this forum is not intended to get into political issues, the nature of this tread invites this discussion.

In a nutshell.... NO MORE NEW TAXES should be tolerated. It is incumbent upon all of us to communicate with our local, state and federal elected representatives to insist that our Federal Government must Live Within Its Means.

 

good point.

here's just yet another example of why this is dumb:

the government and eco movements really, really like high speed rail. they like mass transit. let's say that medium sized towns (say, 40-100K people) implement mass transit in a big way. more people will use it which is a good thing, right? except that then their mileage tax revenue would drop because less people would be putting miles on their cars. And no matter what the motivation, it all ends with money.

The problems with sin taxes occur when the sinning stops.