Taxing for distance travelled? What!

Bruceha, MarinJohn DOES remember back in the late 70's when there was a severe water shortage in N.CA and when everyone conserved so well that the water companies DID indeed drive their revenues down so low that they had to drastically increase prices. Furthermore, those who conserved most were adversely affected by the rate increase than those who didn't conserve. On first appearance, this is what seems to be happening with the road/gas tax. Once thought through, one remembers how politicans have continually a) raided the gas tax coffers to use the proceeds on non-transportation related issues and B) how they have been delaying infrastructure maintenance for so many years that bridges and roads are now crumbling and in need of immediate and extensive repairs which cost MUCH more than if regular maintenance had been done all along. We all know WEIGHT is the most influencing factor in road surface degeneration and now more than ever as trucking companies try to squeeze more weight into each delivery due to "costs". They are not caught because truck weigh stations are closed due to "budget shortfalls".Something to consider is that, BICYCLES are not taxed at all for road use. According to WEIGHT they are not going to degenerate the roads as much as a hummer, but nonetheless they DO use the roads free of charge. This should lead us to look at a combination of charges to keep our roads in safe order, as well as reversing the trend of raiding road funds for general fund purposes. Like the water companies, the road tax fund may be a victim of it's own success. Lets hope they don't punish those who have done the most for conservation, and reward those who turn their noses up at participation in conservation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"51301)</div>

Hmmm, perhaps living in Sacremento, you get better road repair than other parts of the state. Folks here in VT claim that the I89 corridor to Montpelier (the state capitol) gets a disproportional share of funds.

I see the Prop 42 money is handled as properly as I mentioned the VT fuel taxes are. :-(

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"51342)</div>

So very true. They allow tandem trailers on some roads in my county now. The length of a single trailer is now too long for some of the villages that suffer from being on the southern route from NY to NH. The trucks run over curbs because they can't stay on the roads. The UPS trucks got noticably bigger so the drivers wouldn't have to head back to the barn as often during the day. You can see the depressions in the roads from the trucks. At least you know where NOT to drive in the lane during a T-storm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"51349)</div>

Naaah, drove down to Southern Cal last month and my only road complaint was the nasty (deep, wide?) grooves cut into San Diego's freeways. My complaint isn't with the condition of our roads or gas tax money being used to balance the state budget. My beef is with the lies about it not being enough for road maintenance.

California's budget mess as I see it:
A couple [Californians in general] worked in high-tech and lived the high life . . . to the point of giving their teenaged daughter [girlie-man state politicos] a no limit credit card. The couple lost their high-tech jobs and now make average earnings, yet the daughter keeps spending like it's 1999 - and has built up a debt that is straining the parents and hurting their credit rating. The parents try to slow down her spending, but she says she needs school supplies, gas money, food - yet she spends it on the latest fashions, MP3 players, cell phones, parties, etc.

What are the parents to do? Solve the problem by giving her more money or forcing her to better account for what she buys?

This November Californians passed another Proposition to reign in the "daughter" . . . Proposition 60A passed by 73.3% . . . which basically stops the daughter from selling surplus property and using the money to feed her spending habit. The proceeds must be used to pay down the debt. Wise parents!!!

 

Lets remember, there are two different kinds of costs. Per user cost (overhead), and per use cost.

In the case of the water, apparently they weren't charging for the per user overhead. Here in my area of florida, they charge a fee per connection for both water and electric, and then charge for the amount of water and electricity used. Thus the overhead is covered to serve the customer, and conservation is no longer a factor.

As for using less gas thus getting less revenue for road wear/tear that is mostly due to usage, the alternative fuel could also be taxed. Lets remember what's common for transportation over the road: the tire. We could charge a tax on the tire. Higher milage tires would be charged more. Of course there could be problems with that, such as tire replacement not due to wear such as road hazard damage, or getting better tires. Perhaps a credit could be given in those situations, based on tread left. Truck tires could be charged more than passenger car tires.
Now the tire owner could be unfairly taxed in this situation if he drives a significant amount in another state/county/municipality than where he bought the tire. It shouldn't be a major problem though.
The only other way that would be fair for everyone on highways is toll roads. Transponders could be used to efficiently pay the toll, as many locations currently do.

 

Oh, please, there has NEVER been a "fair" tax and there NEVER will be one. It only stands to reason that those who dream up the law, ie lawyers, will insert loopholes to allow those with similar education/social standing to also escape the tax. Unfortunately, us "commoners" have always been shafted with the burden of fixing somebody else's problem. Yet we never hold those idiots accountable; after all, we voted for them. That is why I left the regular workforce in the early 90's, started my own company, and have stayed self-employed: it's the only way to legally take advantage of the tax laws. I find it a true paradox that the very things I try to do as a conscientious citizen end up punishing me. If everybody drove a Prius, had compact florescent lights or especially LED lighting, put in R60 roof insulation and tri-pane Argon filled windows, and put in a super-efficient HVAC, the oil companies, gas companies, and electricity companies would go bankrupt. I used to live in Ontario and remember the mess left behind by Ontario Hydro and their crippling $60 billion debt from their adventure in Nuclear Power. To "solve" the problem then-Premier Mike Harris and Ontario Hydro copied the Enron Solution, and they even promised the gullable Ontario voters that Enron couldn't happen in Ontario after Enron fell. Oops, their bad, some folks were shocked to see their overall power costs jump 2-3X. Of course, this discontent is a good excuse for Socialism/Communism. If those countries have it so swell, why do their citizens risk getting shot trying to get the h*** out?? I'm thinking of China, Cuba, and the Former East Germany.

 

I have two thoughts on this issue:
1. Is this somewhat of a regressive tax in that lower income people tend to live further from work than wealthier people?
2. In order for this to be palatable for me, the tax would have to include vehicle weight multiplier to factor in "wear and tear". To be a progressive law, it would factor in emissions:

tax = miles driven x weight x emissions

This would promote, shorter commutes, public transportation, and low emission vehicles.

 

the first i heard of this legislation was here and on a tech forum i am a member. the biggest problem that is, as of yet unforseen, is that many predict that a workaround to get free miles will be on the internet within a week of the kickoff of this project IF the fix is not published before the program starts.

there has been very very little success in avoiding your fair share of the gas tax using any method other than the "gas and dash". that is until the Prius came along. this legislation is not doubt another attempt by the "oil majority" to make the Prius just a bit less attractive.

to me it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe even billions) to institute a program that will only bring in intially a fraction of the startup cost.

the question of out of state motorists has not been answered and in the case of CA that would be a huge piece of the puzzle. (if you aint puzzled by all this then PLEASE enlighten us!!)

an easy way out would be to charge tiered prices at the pumps. it would be easy to scan the license plates and charge the appropriate tax rate depending on where the vehicle was registered. this would probably have to be coordinated with license plate scans at all the borders in the state.

but now we come to the fringe element. what about the people who dont have credit cards, bank accounts or current addresses at the DMV (should be a huge amount of them in CA with migrants and whatnot) we cant send them a bill... would be a waste of time AND money. how much does CA spend now trying to chase down uncollectable fines?? do we really need to add to that workload?

 

If there is a budget shortfall because of declining gas taxes, why not just raise the tax on gas?

 

hmmm that would make sense... therefore out of the question...

 

Gurmail wrote: "Please don't attack communism/socialism needlessly. This has nothing to do with it. Everything bad isn't socialist or communist."

Quite true, but everything socialist or communist is bad.

Gosh, I hope you were joking!

 

As a matter of fact, most of Europe is "Socialist", at least from the perspective of American Conservatives.

And people ARE flocking INTO those countries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusham\";p=\"52342)</div>

I hope YOU were joking.Why is "everything socialist or communist is bad" ? This kind of mentality shows a blind, misled indoctrination from the cold war days. The Soviet block thinking the West is evil and the West saying the same of the Soviets and their allies.( both with some justification). In reality there were/are good and bad points in both systems and often a balance is ideal as in Western Europe, like the prior poster pointed out.

 

well, here in the communist...er...common wealth of virginia, we have the privaledge of paying a yearly car tax...so we pay taxes at the pump and once a year on each vehicle in the driveway. BUT, even with the extra income the state gov laments the need for more money for our roads. BTW did I mention we also get to pay the county we live in an extra $40 a year for this cute little sticker for our winshields? The problem is not how much they take in, the problem is that the highway funds get raped for every other burning bush issue.
If I lived in Califonia, I'd be very interested in taking them to task to prove that the ONLY thing that they have been spending the highway funds on is infrastructure stuff. If they're taking money out of the fund to pay for other stuff then they don't have a leg to stand on.
ME:boss I need a $20k raise
BOSS: why?
ME: well I just noticed that I'm spending $20k a year more than I make!!
BOSS: oh ok well in that case no problem
spend less don't tax more!!
soap box now avaiable for the next contestant