Mileage Tax: Is it such a bad idea?

[enipla]

More taxes to keep up the infrastructure? Or is it more taxes to reduce the miles driven? Both I guess.

It’s quite funny really, our cars now get better mileage, so we are not paying as much tax. Soooo…. we may be punished for making the right choices.

Many people work from home. Many, many more could.

I think we need a new workplace philosophy. Or eliminate the idea of ‘office’ all together.

I have tried to nudge the idea of telecommuting where I work. telecommuting happens informally all the time. I could easily telecommute 3-4 days a week. But the idea of telecommuting seems to scare the heck out of ‘management’.

I have never thought that punishment was a good incentive. Rewards work. REWARD the worker that can do his job from home.

Don’t tax miles driven. Reward those companies that have telecomuting programs.

@scr4

Walking to work in a city is a lot more healty than driving to work in the suburbs.

Cities do not necessarily have more crime than suburbs.

There will always be a disconnect between city living, suburb living and country living. That’s a good thing. As a society we need all types.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@scr4

I’m talking about reducing car usage, not eliminating it. I use the car when I transport my dog or large items, or go somewhere >10 miles away on a weekday and don’t have time to bike there. In the past month I used the car less than 100 miles, and the bike for 500 miles.

Well there’s 1/3 of the year where car use is inevitable in some climates. Why you do you want to disproportionally punish the north? Do you expect us all to move south?

How about working families with kids. Why do they deserve your wraith? What about people with health problems? People that can’t find a job with in biking distance (situation, weather, health permitting)?

Just pair it with a regressive tax proposal. How about, say, a higher gas tax?

Republicans for raising taxes? You best be kidding. You’d also have problems with Democrats since this would do damage to the poor.

Cities tend to have a large number of jobs within close proximity. That’s the advantage of living in a city as opposed to an urban sprawl.

You’re focusing on suburbs. There’s more to the country then those. Say farms. Which is another problem. How do you expect farmers to pay all these taxes on fuel? Won’t that jack up the price of food?

Remember roughly half the country doesn’t live in metropolitan areas or suburbs. It lives in various rural towns, villages, cities, country side and the like scattered around the states. Along with these scattered people is the manufacturing base. Which is scattered just as much as these cities.

You expect all these factories to just move? Won’t all the energy and materials for rebuilding all these factories elsewhere do quiet a bit of damage to the environment too?

Walking to work in a city is a lot more healty than driving to work in the suburbs.

Unless you get mugged, and assuming it isn’t smoggy and the weather is right for it. Also assuming your mental state is up to it. Many find the city too stressful, or just aren’t happy there.

Cities do not necessarily have more crime than suburbs.

Would the poor be able to afford to live in these relatively crime free areas?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@erislover

Please. Someone is always on the margin. Your misleadingly vivid counterargument has nothing to do with the discussion. The government always tries to ensure people don’t fall off the bottom of society through tax policy. This is not under dispute here.

I don’t think you realize how many are on the margin. It’s very very hard for many to keep their heads above water right now.

I find it very telling you’re focusing on punishing through taxes which makes them more fines when you think about it.

Why not build greener infrastructure and reward people for using it?

I think Biking lanes are a good idea my point against them is they’re not always a practical form of transportation. Another IMO would be highway lanes for slower traffic like scooters, minicars and the like that can’t achieve normal highway speeds. Building up public transportation grids then giving tax credits for using them, or making them free or really cheap.

Once you have that in place I’d see nothing wrong with using taxes to nudge people to the carrot but without putting alternatives in place you’re being needlessly destructive, vindictive, and cruel.

[scr4]

So The Tao’s Revenge, what do you think we should do to insure sufficient funding of the highway infrastructure and to encourage reduced use of gas?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@scr4

So The Tao’s Revenge, what do you think we should do insure sufficient funding of the highway infrastructure and to encourage reduced use of gas?

I’ve answered you anachronistically with my mad time travel skilz. (one post above yours)

[DSeid]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

I’ve answered you anachronistically with my mad time travel skilz. (one post above yours)

I am also interested in the question and no you do not seem to have answered it, or at least not the more important part of it. You have told us that you want to spend more on “greener infrastructure”, and offer more tax credits, and crowd cars into fewer lanes so that you can have a lane for golf carts … but nothing other than that after that you’d consider raising taxes (and not saying which ones).

The number one purpose of the gas tax has been to fund roadway maintenance, and it hasn’t been enough to that even up to date. It is reasonably expected to decrease as fewer gallons get bought even as total miles traveled stays the same. You want to not replace it with another tax and not raise it, while spending more on various infrastructure modifications, and spending more on incentives to use that “greener” infrastructure.

So how are going to both replace the missing funding stream and find the extra money to pay for your additional spending?

[Johnny_L.A]

@enipla

It’s quite funny really, our cars now get better mileage, so we are not paying as much tax. Soooo…. we may be punished for making the right choices.

California had a severe drought in the '80s, and people were urged to conserve water. They did. As I recall, the water companies/districts found their profits falling. So they raised the price of water. (Water was provided in my apartment, so I wasn’t affected directly.)

@enipla

I think we need a new workplace philosophy. Or eliminate the idea of ‘office’ all together.

… I could easily telecommute 3-4 days a week. But the idea of telecommuting seems to scare the heck out of ‘management’.

I have never thought that punishment was a good incentive. Rewards work. REWARD the worker that can do his job from home.

Don’t tax miles driven. Reward those companies that have telecomuting programs.

I tried like mad to convince an employer to allow telecommuting. (It was part of my plan to move out of California.) When half of the department was laid off, guess who was part of that half? Yep, and I was in the process of closing on a house in Washington. The good news is that I have a nice little house by the beach. The bad news is that my employer’s office is over 100 miles away.

Fortunately it’s a non-profit and has different ideas than many huge multi-national corporations. In our small office a couple of people only come in once a week. They let me telecommute Mondays and Fridays (shiftable, if I need/want it). I might be able to work from home a third day, but I haven’t pursued it. I like going down to Seattle and I’m driving a Prius, so it works for me. (Incidentally, the company pays most of the cost of a Metro card, so I cut a few miles by parking at a Park & Ride and taking the bus downtown.)

I thought about getting a studio apartment near the office. I found that the rent would be two to three times my mortgage. Even when I was driving the Jeep, the numbers didn’t work. To move to the city I’d have to sell my house. A couple of problems there: First, it’s not a good time to sell a house. Second, I wouldn’t be able to find a similar house for the price I’d get for this one. And there are jobs. I’ve been laid off because of changes in the industry (that’s what I got out of the ‘Peace Dividend’), budget shifting (funds on my project shifted to another fully-staffed project), sending jobs to other countries (the programming I used to do in California is now done in Chile), and lack of enough work to keep me busy. Am I to sell my house and buy a new one every time I change jobs?

So I’m all for telecommuting. Before you posted, I thought about asking in this thread whether people would support tax incentives for businesses based on the percentage of employees who telecommute. Telecommuting saves the employee money directly through lower fuel costs. Fewer people on the roads would, given sufficient numbers of telecommuters, save fuel for people who can’t or don’t telecommute by reducing congestion. I suspect there would be fewer crashes too. Fewer pollutants would be put into our environment, and there would be less wear and tear on the roads. Businesses would benefit not only from the incentives, but also by being able to lease smaller offices, reduced furniture and equipment needs, and lower electricity and natural gas consumption. Telecommuting may also create jobs, since it’s widespread use would probably require an expanded communications system that would have to be installed, operated, and maintained by telecommunications workers.

[erislover]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

I don’t think you realize how many are on the margin. It’s very very hard for many to keep their heads above water right now.

I am not sure it is germain.

I find it very telling you’re focusing on punishing through taxes which makes them more fines when you think about it.

Punishing? The way I see it, it is accounting for the costs people impose on others while they reap the benefits. It is not punishment to have to pay for a t-shirt at target, it is the price.

Why not build greener infrastructure and reward people for using it?

Why would you suppose I am opposed to this?

Building up public transportation grids then giving tax credits for using them, or making them free or really cheap.

I am not personally after making driving more or less expensive. I am after accounting for the costs. A mileage tax would help this. Other means, like privatizing roads, I find totally impractical if not distortive in their own right.

A mileage tax would not create incentives to be greener. A larger fuel tax might, and fuel consumption is indirectly related to miles driven.

Once you have that in place I’d see nothing wrong with using taxes to nudge people to the carrot but without putting alternatives in place you’re being needlessly destructive, vindictive, and cruel.

As opposed to sitting in traffic which is costless and a cause for celebration. Every hour a person on the margin spends in traffic is an hour he cannot earn money, but I guess that doesn’t count?

[Syntropy]

@enipla

Yeah, this is just what we need right now. A hugely expensive program that will create tons of red tape and not change a thing.

If 50% of the tax goes to alternative fuel research and infrastructure improvement how could that be said to “not change a thing”? I see no issue with a gas tax that contributes to a solution for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. The money is not going to come from private funding in the middle of a deep recession.

I already pay additional tax because I drive a bit more than most folks. I also pay more tax because I drive an SUV.

People that drive more buy more fuel and pay more tax.

Heavier vehicles use more fuel and pay more tax.

A rather obvious solution presents itself.

When fuel costs were at their peak it was understood that an alternative fuel solution was a necessity. Now that they have returned to a more comfortable price, we are once again slipping into the relaxed and dangerous attitude that things are just fine and we can put up with what we have so long as taxes don’t get raised. Historically, we are not willing to change in our long term best interest unless we are made uncomfortable with our current situation as we were when a gallon of gas was nearly $5. The only way we are going to support a rapid viable solution is if we are once again that uncomfortable.

[enipla]

@Syntropy

If 50% of the tax goes to alternative fuel research and infrastructure improvement how could that be said to “not change a thing”?

I hate to do it, but CITE PLEASE. Where is it said that 50% of LeHoods proposal is going to alternative fuel research and infrastructure?

AND then where is the OTHER 50% going?

Syntropy - No where in any of my posts did I suggest where a fuel tax be funneled. Other than to say that a larger gas tax may prompt people to buy alternative energy vehicles and thus increase the research into such.

Johnny L.A ---- yep telecommuting is a contentious subject. I just had shoulder surgery. I knew that I would be out of the office for at least a few days. I told my boss that I would at the least be checking my work email to keep up on things.

He told me to NOT check work email. Since there was no way to ‘compensate me’ for it.

I’ve been here for 17 years. I’m not going to ask for ‘compensation’ because I checked my email. To suggest that I would is very insulting.

I’m not looking for compensation. I’m not worried about my job. I do however like to take care of those people that depend on me. That’s compensation enough thank you very much.

My boss is an ass. Well, that’s a nice word for it.

[erislover]

@Syntropy

When fuel costs were at their peak it was understood that an alternative fuel solution was a necessity. Now that they have returned to a more comfortable price, we are once again slipping into the relaxed and dangerous attitude that things are just fine and we can put up with what we have so long as taxes don’t get raised. Historically, we are not willing to change in our long term best interest unless we are made uncomfortable with our current situation as we were when a gallon of gas was nearly $5. The only way we are going to support a rapid viable solution is if we are once again that uncomfortable.

If there is no political will, out of our short-sighted laziness, to support a “rapid, viable solution” then how could there possibly be will to implement what you suggest?

[Syntropy]

@enipla

I hate to do it, but CITE PLEASE. Where is it said that 50% of LeHoods proposal is going to alternative fuel research and infrastructure?

AND then where is the OTHER 50% going?

In the first place, LaHood’s was not the only plan for a mileage tax: at least four states are planning on implementing or are introducing a vote on legislation to implement mileage tax. The number I got was from California’s state site:

Alternatively, owners and operators may pay an excise tax on CNG of $0.07 per 100 cubic feet measured at standard pressure and temperature, $0.06 per gallon of LNG, and $0.06 per gallon of LPG. The excise tax on ethanol and methanol containing up to 15% gasoline or diesel fuel is half of the current tax on gasoline and diesel.

(Reference California Revenue and Taxation Code 8651-8651.8)
Employer Invested Emission Reduction Funding - South Coast

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) administers the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP). The AQIP provides funding to allow employers within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction to make annual investments into an administered fund to meet employers’ emission reduction targets. The revenues collected are used to fund alternative mobile source emission/trip reduction programs, including alternative fuel vehicle projects, on an on-going basis. Programs such as procurement of low-emission, alternative fuel or zero emission vehicles, and old vehicle scrapping may be considered for funding.

The remainder is excise tax. In the second place I don’t believe LaHood ever submitted a formalized plan beyond stating he was considering a mileage tax before President Obama and other members of the administration squashed it.

Syntropy - No where in any of my posts did I suggest where a fuel tax be funneled. Other than to say that a larger gas tax may prompt people to buy alternative energy vehicles and thus increase the research into such.

No, what you said was that it was a “hugely expensive program that would create tons of red tape and not change a thing.” I’m wondering what causes you such certainty when the state with the largest number of vehicles has a clear plan to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 with several other states like Utah and Oregon considering the same. Your reaction was knee jerk. You were making predictions without even seeing the details of a plan that didn’t even exist as it turns out.

We have a vested interest here in Texas to protect our oil ventures. Trust me I’ve heard all the arguments against alternative sources of fuel. I don’t agree with them. We can’t produce enough to feed the entire country and there has to be another plan.

The obvious solution I was alluding to was that you may want to consider dumping your SUV and invest in a more economical vehicle.

[Syntropy]

@erislover

If there is no political will, out of our short-sighted laziness, to support a “rapid, viable solution” then how could there possibly be will to implement what you suggest?

Oh I’m not naive enough to think people will have the good will or the will power to agree to do what is in their own best interest. I was pointing out what I thought was a sad irony. We will not submit to short term discomfort in order to ensure long term stability.

[Voyager]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

So how do you propose the poor feed themselves and pay their bills when they can’t afford to travel to work?

That’s ok, they all starved to death when gas was $4 a gallon.

It is rather astonishing to hear people forecasting gloom and doom for taxes that would raise prices a tiny fraction of what they were 8 months ago. Better they go to the government than into Hugo Chavez’ pockets.

[Voyager]

@Magiver

I understand your point but its 2009. a 20 year old car is a 1989 car with a computer. You’re examples of major repairs do not represent a significant number. Of course there’s someone out there driving a 1974 Maverick but you’ll die of hunger waiting to see it drive by. And even if you see it, it doesn’t change any arguments beyond it sucks to be poor and over-taxed.

Probably where you are, yes, but in California, where we don’t get snow and salt to rot car bodies, we have a lot of old cars. In fact, the state at one point paid bounties for people to junk their old cars that polluted more than recent ones. That would be a possibility. I agree with you that old cars aren’t the problem - the maintenance on them would be so high that it is more likely a poor person would get rid of them for a used, cheap, but newer one.

[erislover]

@Voyager

That’s ok, they all starved to death when gas was $4 a gallon.

Good point! We better get moving now, then.

[Voyager]

@erislover

Good point! We better get moving now, then.

Or did you miss the invisible snark smiley I put in?

[erislover]

I took it exactly as you meant it.

[DSeid]

Update. The idea aint dead yet.

A bi-partisan Congressionally-created commission has recommended a shift from motor fuel taxes to direct fees charged to transportation infrastructure users—i.e., a federal mileage fee—as a way to reform financing of the US transportation infrastructure.

The recommendation is part of the final report issued by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, “Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance”. The commissioners noted that “while no first draft of a major reform is perfect”, they were unanimously offering the report as a road map for the transition to a new funding and finance framework.

The nation faces a crisis. Our surface transportation system has deteriorated to such a degree that our safety, economic competitiveness, and quality of life are at risk.

—“Paying our Way”
From 1980 to 2006, the total number of miles traveled (VMT) by automobiles increased 97%; truck VMT increased 106%. Over the same period, the total number of highway lane miles grew a scant 4.4%. More than half of the miles that Americans travel on the federal-aid highway system are on roads that are in less than good condition, more than one-quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and roughly one-quarter of the nation’s bus and rail assets are in marginal or poor condition, according to the report.

Real highway spending per mile traveled has fallen by nearly 50% since the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was established in the late 1950s. Total combined highway and transit spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen by about 25% in the same period to 1.5% of GDP today.

An ever-expanding backlog of investment needs is the price of our failure to maintain funding levels—and the cost of these investments grows as we delay. Without changes to current policy, it is estimated that revenues raised by all levels of government for capital investment will total only about one-third of the roughly $200 billion necessary each year to maintain and improve the nation’s highways and transit systems…

… In order to support the transition from the gas tax to a mileage-based charge, the Financing Commission recommends a ten cent per gallon increase in the federal gas tax (15 cents for diesel) and indexing the tax to inflation going forward. The gas tax, which is not currently indexed to inflation, has lost 1/3 of its purchasing power since 1993, the last time the tax was increased.

Although the Commission recommends moving away from a fuel tax, it also noted that a portion of revenues derived from a carbon tax on fuels should be allocated to the highway fund.

To the extent, however, that surface transportation fuels are subject to a charge in the future to account for their carbon emissions (e.g., a carbon tax or priced through carbon trading), an appropriate portion of those proceeds should be credited to the HTF and dedicated to funding carbon-reducing transportation strategies.

Other recommendations of the report include:

Commence the transition to a new, more direct user charge system as soon as possible and commit to deploying a comprehensive system by 2020. Because of the complexity inherent in transitioning to a new revenue system and the urgency of the need, the Commission recommends that Congress embark immediately on an aggressive research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program.

Ensure that, once implemented, mileage-based fees and any other charges are set to meet the designated federal share of national surface transportation investment needs, and index these rates to inflation. Simply shifting from one revenue system to another will not solve the underinvestment problem if rates are not set at sufficient levels and maintained over time to meet the needs.

As the new mileage-based fee system is put in place, reduce and ultimately eliminate current fuel and other vehicle-related charges as the primary mechanism for funding the surface transportation system, recognizing that the fuel tax may play a role in meeting other important national policy objectives.

Establish VMT technology standards and require original equipment vehicle manufacturers to install standardized technology by a date certain that will accommodate the desired 2020 comprehensive implementation.

Initiate an extensive public outreach effort to create a broad understanding of the current funding problem, the proposed solution, the intended method of implementation, and the anticipated impact on individual system users.

Such a move to a mileage tax does not currently have the support of the White House. Responding to earlier comments by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood on examining a mileage tax, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “that [a mileage tax] is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.”

[NinetyWt]

Dang you DSeid, I was just fixing to post that!

This commission is the National Surface Transportation Commission which was established by the SAFETEA-LU legislation (last year, I think). It predates the Obama administration:

Section 11142(a) of SAFETEA-LU established the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and charged it with analyzing future highway and transit needs and the finances of the Highway Trust Fund and making recommendations regarding alternative approaches to financing transportation infrastructure. These recommendations must address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

(a) the levels of revenue that the Federal Highway Trust Fund will require to maintain and improve the condition and performance of the Nation’s highway and transit systems and to ensure that Federal levels of investment in highways and transit do not decline in real terms (§ 11142(b)(2)(A)-(B)); and
(b) the extent, if any, to which the Highway Trust Fund should be augmented by other mechanisms or funds as a Federal means of financing highway and transit infrastructure investments (§ 11142(b)(2)©).

The Commission will have 2 years to complete its work, and its final product will be a report that provides both analysis and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate . (§ 11142(b)(2)&(h)).

As provided by statute, the Commission has 15 members representing State and local government, industry, financial institutions, public policy organizations, and law firms.(§ 11142©)

The Financing Commission has been chartered as a Federal Advisory Committee.