I acknowledged that in the OP. But more than doubling people’s taxes will hurt a lot of people, while making it cheaper for heavy-vehicle drivers will increase road maintenance costs.
I would rather the gas tax be raised, instead of a per-mile tax.
That does represent an effective subsidy for electric and LPG vehicles, but then, there are good arguments for encouraging drivers to adopt alternative fuel/power vehicles for reasons beyond sharing the burden of road maintenance.
If your point is that such a law wouldn’t be ‘fair’ you can probably make that argument regardless of how the tax is distributed. Drivers who drive only exclusively on municipal or country roads are bearing undue burden by paying a tax to maintain state highways and roads, but as your mother no doubt reminded you, life isn’t fair.
Stranger
I got an electric car and I’m 100% in favor of per-mile taxes in combination with gas taxes. I use the roads too, why shouldn’t I contribute to their upkeep?
I think there are many, many ways to implement a per-mile and per-gallon tax fairly, but here is one concept. Let’s take three drivers who each put 12,000 miles a year on their cars:
Driver One has a conventional car and pays full freight on the gas tax, and a very small amount for a per-mile tax, so this driver has an annual bill of 100 fictional units of currency, same as they pay in gas taxes today.
Driver Two has a hybrid and pays half of driver one’s gas tax due to better economy, but pays a higher rate on the per-mile tax, so this driver has an annual bill of 75 fictional units of currency.
Driver Three has an electric car and pays an even higher rate on the per-mile tax, so this driver pays an annual bill of 50 fictional units of currency.
Under this scheme, the government collects 225 units of currency for road maintenance; whereas under current law the government would collect only 150 units. (100 for Driver one, and 50 for Driver Two.) Drivers Two and Three would pay more than current law, but less than Driver One. Each of which are completely fair IMHO. Drivers Two and Three, depending on what model cars they buy, could also be eligible for other benefits, such as Federal tax credits, state tax credits, access to HOV lanes, or other perks. And by not being a free rider, everyone benefits from better roads.
Agree. This is an entirely rational and expected result of raising CAFE requirements and rising fuel prices. I have little sympathy for hybrid and electric vehicle owners who will pay more in taxes if per-mile taxation goes into effect. If you are paying less in fuel taxes than other drivers, it seems fair to pony up and help pay for road construction and maintenance. You will still have lower operating costs due to MPG.
As for how the tax will be calculated, I’ve noticed that my annual car registration now includes an entry for the car’s odometer reading. And the vehicle’s odometer reading is noted every year during the safety inspection.
The gas tax is there to raise revenue for roads and infrastructure not to punish people for buying inefficient vehicles. Your car puts just as much wear on the road as another car so why would you think you should pay less?
Because my car does not put as much wear on the road as the average large car, compact truck, compact SUV, midsize truck, midsize SUV, large truck, large SUV, or commercial vehicles.
I seriously doubt the federal or state governments are going to eliminate fuel taxes, so those will still be paid. And people with less efficient vehicles will still pay more in that manner. But that doesn’t mean that you (presuming you drive a hybrid, EV, NG or even a miserly gasoline car) shouldn’t have to pay a more reasonable share for road maintenance and construction. Presumably, gasoline taxes would be reduced (Ha!, like that would ever happen) or at least not increased, and the per-mile tax would be imposed. So, those who burn more fuel would still pay more, but not to the overwhelming degree that happens with only a fuel tax.
I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand, other than the viewpoint that driving a hybrid/EV vehicle means you are entitled to perpetual freeloading on other car owners. As if HOV lanes and tax credits aren’t enough.
Are the taxes that you will pay under this proposal, for funding road construction projects, be more or less than those types of vehicles? Do you maintain that your car puts zero wear on roads, so you should pay nothing toward road maintenance?
The taxes aren’t just to fix the wear and tear. Some of the funds are for projects to ease congestion, etc., which you add to as well.
I would suspect that there will be some sort of recompense for people like your wife who drive as a part of their job, as there is (should be?) with regards to fuel.
I wonder how that will work with agricultural vehicles.
Any such tax would have to figure in weight as well as miles to make any sense, true. But the ones proposed or experimented with, do. They typically put private vehicles all in the same light weight category, but not commercial trucks. A big SUV doesn’t really affect the roads that much more than a Prius, but a Class 8 truck obviously does and this must be accounted for.
Otherwise as usual ‘fair’ is in the eye of the beholder. As mentioned, cars which burn more gas don’t really affect road wear or especially traffic congestion much more than cars that burn less gas, in general. Burning less gasoline has macro advantages, but that doesn’t mean every policy wrt cars must be another subsidy for high mileage or electric cars or else it’s not ‘fair’.
And at some point that’s what it is, especially if considering electric cars. That they’d pay no tax to build and maintain roads, ever (when people already get several $1k income tax credits to buy them)? That doesn’t seem the obviously one and only ‘fair’ policy to me.
road damage scales with the fourth power of gross vehicle weight; commercial big-rigs, maxing out at 80,000 pounds, cause the vast majority of road damage; cars, SUVs and pickup trucks, even the gas guzzlers that max out at 8,000 pounds, cause relatively little. The ratio of those weights, taken to the fourth power, is about 10,000:1.
One thing it may do is disincentive long commutes and have people move closer to work, which would save gas.
Rural people with long commute times due to distance might want to move closer. Urban people who have long commutes due to traffic would still be pumping out smog, it just wouldn’t cost them as much.
It would really only disincentive long commutes for people who already have fuel efficient vehicles.
I’m for a tax like this, but of course the other problem is that people are stupid. There are going to be people who are going to mad when the tax bill comes in, even if they saved more money with the lower gas tax.
I see this as a nightmare which will never work.
Failure #1 Cheating.
Companies with fleets of trucks have mechanics on staff to fix anything that goes wrong with their trucks. I’m not saying all companies will cheat… but some will… and like steroid use, the others will have to start just to compete.
The people who’ll pick up the slack are individual citizens who won’t have the knowledge or the materials to jury rig their cars to ‘cheat’.
Failure #2 Accumulated Cost.
As it stands right now, people pay as they go. If they don’t pay, they don’t go which both simplifies collection and keeps outstanding debts low. Under this new system, each citizen will get a bill for the past year handed to them to pay in (Oh pick a month, April?).
Lets say they drove 15,000 miles last year and they get 20MPG. The state need approximately $0.50 per gallon per driver to pay its way at the year prior’s spending levels, so it needs to collect (not counting interest lost by not holding on-the-spot tax collections).
The simple math is (15000/20)/2 per car… or approximately $375 due immediately.
Now, if we were machines or drones (or even if most of us were responsible citizens) we’d sock away in a separate checking account some amount ($5-$10?) per week so this bill would be covered when it came due. Some of us do something like that now concerning
car insurance. But, just like car insurance, come tax day there are going to be people yelling, 'OMFG! How am I going to pay this? I don’t have that kind of money just sitting around." The wailing and the gnashing of teeth will be legendary. Just like with insurance,
some people will scofflaw and just not pay it, which will shove an unnecessary problem up the Police Blotter (and the court’s docket).
To steal a line from and to misquote Harry Callahan, "Fining, taking the licenses away from drivers, and jailing scofflaws using a system which is already over-burdened with Actual criminal cases is one hell of a price to pay for just being ‘Stylish’. "
You pay for them with Gasoline taxes as needed, higher annual registration fees, and higher inspection fees.
Yes it is there as a disincentive for inneficient vehicles. Just like a household appliance, you’ll see a cost savings when you buy your next more-efficient model. You can still have your Firebirds, your Mustangs, and your Challengers but you’ll pay more.
Think of it as a luxury tax.
Any particular reason it has to be done via GPS as opposed to just annual odometer readings at registration time? Spying on everyone’s whereabouts all the time via GPS is a serious invasion of privacy that goes way beyond the scope of simply collecting taxes.
Well, if you can find me a 3BR, 2BA house on a quarter acre, 400 feet from the beach, in Seattle, for $150,000…
… possibly, but only after a mud-slide…
~d&r~