Ok, so you want to tax me on my wages. Oh, and then you want to tax me on what I have left to put in my bank. And then you want to tax me on that same money when I buy things. And if I bought them in a different state, you want to tax me again. But wait, now you want to tax me on my mileage for getting to work, the bank and the store? How many times can you tax me on the same $10 per hour???
-------------
AP Interview: LaHood eyes taxing miles driven
By JOAN LOWY 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.
Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.
The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.
Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.
"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"
A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.
Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.
Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.
The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.
So instead of raising the gasoline tax due to the economy right now we'll just replace it with a tax that will be higher and hope people don't notice it. It's still the same thing to me - higher taxes. I already cut back on how much driving I do as I'm down to 4 miles in a normal day to and from work. When I go to the gym that adds on another 4 miles total. There isn't much more I can do to cut back on my driving. If we had decent public transportation here sure I'd consider it but we don't so that isn't an option.
Yeah, and it also seems like an invasion of privacy with all that info being tracked, maybe I'm being paranoid but it seems like it could also be used as a tracking device.
Yeah, and it also seems like an invasion of privacy with all that info being tracked, maybe I'm being paranoid but it seems like it could also be used as a tracking device.
good point.
__________________
"Fashion can be bought. Style one must possess." ~ Edna Woolman Chase
I'm a perfect example of why this proposal is logical. I drive a hybrid, so I use less gas and pay less gas taxes, but I use just as much of the road as someone whose car is inefficient. The theory is a good one - why should I pay less than my share for roads that I use just as much simply because I burn less gas? (People who drive gas-guzzlers should actually support this.)
But all of these plans make me mad because transit taxes disproportionately affect the working class, whether they're gas taxes or anything else. We've talked about this before, so I won't go into detail, but blue- and pink-collar workers have longer commutes than white-collar workers. Women have longer commutes than men. African-American women have longer commutes than white women. And so on. The ones who can least afford it feel the greatest impact.
Suasoria - Do women really have longer commutes? I've never heard this before. Verrry interesting. How did they figure that out? And what is the reason behind it?
The way I read this proposal was that it would in effect replace the gas tax. I think there are a lot of pluses and minuses to this issue. For one, as mentioned in the article, this discourages buying fuel efficient cars, since you'll be taxed the same no matter what kind of car you drive. On the other hand, however, it would probably encourage people to drive less, and even, who knows, create huge public demand for a better (and CHEAPER) public transportation system.
I don't know that this is the way we need to go, and I agree with HeatherLynn that it seems very invasive. But I think it's an interesting proposal. Does anyone know if this has been tried anywhere else?
Suasoria - Do women really have longer commutes? I've never heard this before. Verrry interesting. How did they figure that out? And what is the reason behind it?
Where are the sociology majors? The reason is "spatial entrapment," or location, location, location. This includes where the affordable housing is in comparison to commercial/industrial centers, where the jobs are. The less money you make, the further away you have to live. Women in domestic and pink-collar jobs don't usually can't afford to live in the neighborhoods where they work, for example.
Women also engage in "trip chaining" more often than men, which means stopping for groceries on the way home, or stopping to pick up kids from daycare, etc.
One note - the issue of longer commutes especially applies to women and men in equal career positions. On the other hand, women are more likely than men to be employed in lower wage/shorter commute jobs so they can be closer to children's schools/daycare. This is another factor in spatial entrapment.
Not that I know of, at least not via devices in the car that send your mileage data in. They check your mileage when you go to DEQ (ever other year) but they don't charge you more depending on the number of miles you drove. They are talking about making DEQ manadatory every year instead of every other here and doubling the price, which would of course quadruple their revenue. And back up the already insanely backed-up DEQ stations, but whatever ....
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment ~ {Ralph Waldo Emerson}