Mileage Tax Suggested to Replace Gasoline Tax « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Mileage Tax Suggested to Replace Gasoline Tax

[90 posts] [31 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by Walker
Latest reply from Cole

Tags:

12…5 Next »

Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

Mileage tax suggested to replace gasoline tax
Sunday, August 1, 2010
BY DOUG CARUSO
The Columbus Dispatch

For decades, paying for roads has been fairly straightforward. Motorists pay at the pump through gasoline taxes. It's more or less fair, too: The more you drive, the more you pay.

But more and more, people involved in transportation planning and construction say that model is breaking down as many vehicles get better gas mileage or don't use gasoline.

They say that the federal and state governments eventually should switch to a system that charges a tax based on how many miles you drive, not how many gallons you consume.

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/01/gas-tax-mileage-pay-for-roads.html?sid=101

Posted 1 year ago #
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle. However, I absolutely positively will not support a system that uses GPS tracking. Such a system is bound to be costly, difficult to implement, and ripe for abuse by law enforcement or unscrupulous hackers.

All they need to do is have you drive by your local BMV once per year and have somebody look at the odometer on your dashboard. Simple, and no privacy problems.

Posted 1 year ago #
Anne
King Lincoln
Login to Send PM

That would be a pretty big bill though, right?

Posted 1 year ago #
cc

Login to Send PM

I think a mileage based system is the fairest solution. I wonder though if they would then have to get rid of gas taxes. It would make gas 46 cents cheaper per gallon. They might make a gas sin tax...

just a quick conservative estimate

.46 cents / 22 mpg (thinking suv) = .02 cents tax per mile

12,000 miles per year * .02 tax = $240

that doesn't seem too crazy.

The one very good thing about the gas tax is that it is very hard to dodge. I see a lot of waste or tax dodging in alternative methods.

Posted 1 year ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

I have to wonder though... if the taxes are re-balanced through mileage, wouldn't that take away some of the incentive of owning a fuel-efficient car?

Also, if the taxes at the pump are removed and gasoline prices are lowered, it would also disincentivize public support for public transit. No one wants to ride or pay for buses or rail when driving is cheap. I think we'd run the risk of setting back those efforts by removing the tax from gasoline.

Posted 1 year ago #
cc

Login to Send PM

That is my point. I would think they will add a sin tax on gasoline.

Posted 1 year ago #
0Angle
A brewery or my kitchen or my bicycle.
Login to Send PM

Tax mileage AND gas! (and charge those dang bicyclists mileage, too!-with their spandex shorts and their yellow jerseys...)

Posted 1 year ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

Well this would certainly benefit Hummer owners and cost Volt owners.

Which I don't relly care about that much.

But from past experiance we will end up with both taxes.
Kind of like the state lottery. They promise that the lottery revenue will go toward schools. (cool, think the taxpayers, that is a good cause.) But what they dont say is that they pull the other budget money from the schools and let the lottery money replace it.
So we have a net gain of zero for the schools even though millions are coming in.

Posted 1 year ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

I'm trying to remember exactly how it worked, but when I lived in NC, there was a "state tax" on vehicles, based on the blue book cost of that vehicle. They had taxes at the pump, but I believe the largest part of the road tax came from this extra vehicle tax.

At the time I had a GMC Sierra XLT pickup - when it was a year old, my tax bill was $230.

Posted 1 year ago #
johnwirtz
Evanston, IL
Login to Send PM

Analogue Kid wrote >>
I'm not opposed to the idea in principle. However, I absolutely positively will not support a system that uses GPS tracking. Such a system is bound to be costly, difficult to implement, and ripe for abuse by law enforcement or unscrupulous hackers.
All they need to do is have you drive by your local BMV once per year and have somebody look at the odometer on your dashboard. Simple, and no privacy problems.

I don't know much about unscrupulous hackers, but Oregon has already successfully piloted a GPS-based VMT fee system:
http://trb.metapress.com/content/8qu1824x5408xk14/

I'd personally rather have GPS than have to go to the BMV more often.

Posted 1 year ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

Analogue Kid wrote >>

I don't know much about unscrupulous hackers, but Oregon has already successfully piloted a GPS-based VMT fee system:
http://trb.metapress.com/content/8qu1824x5408xk14/
I'd personally rather have GPS than have to go to the BMV more often.

Depends upon your definition of 'successfully'
The report you linked to says that;
1) The technology is not there yet, both in accuracy and even availability.
2) It was the most costly method. Both for the consumer and at the data collection points.
3) There were significant consumer concerns.

If this is your idea of a 'successful' project, can you be my new boss?

Posted 1 year ago #
johnwirtz
Evanston, IL
Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

Analogue Kid wrote >>
I don't know much about unscrupulous hackers, but Oregon has already successfully piloted a GPS-based VMT fee system:
http://trb.metapress.com/content/8qu1824x5408xk14/
I'd personally rather have GPS than have to go to the BMV more often.

Depends upon your definition of 'successfully'
The report you linked to says that;
1) The technology is not there yet, both in accuracy and even availability.
2) It was the most costly method. Both for the consumer and at the data collection points.
3) There were significant consumer concerns.
If this is your idea of a 'successful' project, can you be my new boss?

You're right. It looks like that report was from 2002 before the pilot was completed. I have read more favorable reports since. Let me see if I can find the more recent report.

Here we go, from 2007:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/OSU_VMT_Final_Report_WEB.pdf?ga=t

Results Summary Key Findings:
-The concept is viable.
-Paying at the pump works.
-The mileage fee can be phased in.
-Can be integrated with current system.
-Congestion and other pricing options are viable.
-Privacy is protected.
-Minimal impact on businesses.
-Potential for evasion is minimal.
-Cost of implementation and administration is low.

Yes, I would be happy to interview you for a position as my assistant.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

This is a terrible idea...it penalizes those citizens who live in a rural area while doing nothing to address the issue of consumption.

Posted 1 year ago #
cc

Login to Send PM

That is a very good point. In the end there will probably be some double taxing, but the more rural poor would end up at with the short end of the stick.

Posted 1 year ago #
cr0m
"Lower" Hilliard
Login to Send PM

In the case of mileage tax, I would think that there needs to be a reward for those that commute responsibly (using fuel efficient cars for example). Or, implement RAIL (like Cinci) so that commuters have even more choices to get around the city. I guess a mileage tax could ease funding gaps and incent people to commute using alternative methods. However, what about those who commute and have no alternate choice? How do we prevent them from being adversely affected? Car pooling with strangers?

Personally, I still want a tax increase on fast food. Maybe that will incent people to eat better and thus affect health premiums in a more positive way. Maybe we could use "doctorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s offices" like the gas stations mentioned in this article. Those that come in for checkups have to pay a tax on poor health due to unhealthy living practices? No?

Posted 1 year ago #
cc

Login to Send PM

I would think people who actually do preventative maintenance on their health should get tax breaks. I would be for a tax incentive for not being over a certain wieght (something like bmi).

I agree about taxes on fast food and would also suggest a tiered system of tax breaks for fuel efficient vehicles.

Then again, it is beginning to look pretty facist...

Posted 1 year ago #
manticore33
Delaware, OH
Login to Send PM

I like the idea. Pushing people to drive more efficient vehicles is not going to save the planet. In the end, we are still preserving the same system that helped to put us into this mess. (What happens in 2110 when electricity generation peaks, power plant emissions become unacceptable, and we cannot meet demand? Like with gasoline, market forces will drive cheap electric and make it more expensive in the future. Edit: Haha and people will be complaining about $3.00/kw/h)

So, if I want to own a large inefficient car so be it. But if I don't drive it much, does it really do any harm? Likewise, you must consider the net emission from producing these new "fuel efficient" and "highly complex cars."

Not everybody wants a new car loan, and I am one of them. I love owning all of my vehicles outright. My 24 year old car still nets 23 mpg avg with early EFI and has 217hp and will outperform a lot of newer V8 cars. I am not going to junk it for a hybrid.

And yes, it will penalize those who live far, far away. However, it could promote people to be more aware of the places they life. But I still cannot get over my friend who drives from Mt. Gilead, OH to the Lewis Center, OH Wal-Mart and wonder why? I mean, there are FAR, FAR closer Wal-Marts.

So, maybe it will promote the urban density that is praised here or cause people to be more aware of where they choose to live.

Regardless, we cannot sustain our current system.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

I'm sure that the people who live in Montana, or on the isolated property their family has owned for generations, or who can't afford to move are pretty aware of where they live.

Posted 1 year ago #
manticore33
Delaware, OH
Login to Send PM

I am sure they are. However, we cannot always maintain tradition. Either way, those Montanains are going to have problems with a per mileage tax or $7.00/gal gasoline if they cannot afford a new car note. Volt is not exactly cheap when it is priced more than entry-level BMWs.

Posted 1 year ago #
CDS sherman
East Franklinton
Login to Send PM

my vehicle registration is just under 300 dollars a year, i could not imagine adding a few more hundred on top of that. keep the damn gasoline tax, hell raise it for all i care if thats the issue.

Posted 1 year ago #