This is a link to an article that was in our paper today on a plan that is going to be tested in Oregon on taxing you by the mile and states you drive in Vs by the gallon of gas where you fill up. http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?.../505090360/1001 We should all be keeping a close eye on this, as not only will it increase your taxes it will also give fuel efficient owners a penality.
WHEN people stop driving as much to get out from under this version of the tax, they'll establish both taxes (fuel and miles), along with a minimum mile threshold to make sure they get enough. I pay for a minimum amount of water each month, so any vehicle-related tax will probably work out the same...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul\";p=\"88246)</div> It's just one of those things that irk me..... They say save fuel, save fuel... then say we'll add a tax if you do so we don't loose money. If the truth be known, this is probably why the Govt. isn't pushing for better fuel mileage vehicles, because they will loose money and have to add a tax, which will look bad for them and may not get them elected again.
This is being done in other counties(edit: countries, not counties, sorry!), but as a measure to reduce congestion, you pay more for "prime time" driving in the city core, less when the traffic levels are lower. But this is one daft idea on the premise that they are losing money from lighter cars that pollute less. The fact is that heavy over the road 18 wheel trucks cause 9900 times the damage to the roads of one passenger car. So, tax the heavy vehicles a lot more, make it a per pound tax per mile. That actually makes plenty of sense. But, that isn't the proposal, what this means is that government taxes are geared to high consumption. We will NEVER outlaw smoking because governments are now the worst addicts, addicted to taxes and payoffs from tobacco companies. They want people to smoke themselves to death now, most of that anti-smoking stuff is dying a quick death in favor of collecting the revenue.
While the big rigs may damage the roads the most, they will be exempt. And the reason they will be exempt is that they carry everything. And if they're taxed they'll pass along the cost. And everything you buy that is hauled by a truck, in other words...everything...will cost more. And the economy will slide faster down the toilet than it is doing now. Look how just the rise in gasoline prices has effected the cost of everything and the economy. No, the average citizen will bear the burden. When there's a drought we conserve water, and so the rates are raised because they're not making enough money. We conserve electricity and the rates are raised because the power companies are losing money. We buy hybrids to conserve gasoline...... I think you get the picture. No matter what we do to save....we'll pay more for less.
Well, you guys have the power to vote them out of office. If they try putting this stuff in, make it known to them that they'll be reduced to "the masses paying the taxes" if they vote for it. Nothing is as valuable to a politician as themselves N.
Well, yes, if trucks are taxed for damaging roads, they may pass on the cost to us. That seems reasonable, as it is because of my demand for what's on that truck that had a part in damaging the road, so I should help pay for it, just as my actually driving on the road has a part in damaging the road. Maybe we should go back to transporting goods by rail?
Railroad companies pay taxes too. All corporate taxes are passed along to consumers. Most consumer goods are trucked because it's cheaper.
Citizens should in no uncertain terms protest this idea if it were to be adopted nationwide. I drive about 90 miles a day to commute to my job, that is one reason I'm considering (strongly) buying a Prius. Also, I already pay to use a portion of the road via tolls on the state turnpike. The road has caused more damage to my car than my car has to the road!
Federal government interference has already totally screwed up the rail system and halted any real development of it a long time ago.
Trucking goods was cheaper only because gas was cheaper. Rail was actually a more efficient means of transporting goods. But not any more. Because our once efficient and extensive rail system is pretty much dismantled. Not much left compared to what there was. And it would be more expensive to try to restore the system to go back to major rail transportation. But....who knows. We may have to bite the bullet, pay the expense and go back to using rail much more than we do now.
Another idea, at least as food for thought: If I'm not mistaken, the Autobahn in Germany is built of concrete that is something like three times thicker than the concrete on the US Interstates. Would it be possibly cheaper in the long run, as roads wear out and become due for replacement or resurfacing, to build them thicker or in such a way that they stand up better to the wear and tear caused by heavy trucks? Of course the up-front cost to build a better highway would be higher and nobody would want to pay it, but wouldn't the total lifetime cost of the road be lower?
My friend worked on the highways and said a very similar thing. He said they told the States almost on a daily basis that the roads did not have enough base, drainage or allow the concrete to cure properly. They were always told we know what we need you guys just worry about building to our spec's. Typical government and politics and we are now paying for it in spades with major road repairs, bad bridges, etc....
