States consider taxing you by the mile...

[shesulsa]

To be fair, taxing by the mile is not accurate. I could ride my motorcycle 50,000 miles per year and it is not going to give the wear and tear to the roads like a bus or tractor trailor will.

I'd say that law has a "Congressional Oversight."

Indeed. Which is why the idea was initially for the companies with big rigs anyway, because they do FAR more damage to the roads than passenger vehicles with winter studs on them EVER will.

Wait a minnit - did we just agree on something?

 

[loki09789]

It seems to me that taxing the fuel would be a more efficient way of collecting taxes. It also helps encourage people to move to more fuel efficient vehicles.

I give this idea 2 thumbs down.

:shrug:

Be careful because the GPS/On Star stuff will become the next 'safety feature' that car manufacturers will include standard when they 'exceed mandatory safety ratings'....they will show you the 'safety hand' while they slip this into everyone's cars first THEN it will be used to track mileage....

Of course any 12 year old out there today will be able to hack into the system and locate someone, mess with their mileage record....So, I guess I need to hire Ferris Beuller for a day in 10 years....

 

[lvwhitebir]

But there are much less expensive ways to track mileage than a GPS system in every vehicle - all it takes is an odometer check at annual or bi-annual vehicular inspection. That is quite simply a no-brainer.

Then you're taxed by one state for driving outside that state too. That doesn't sit well either.

I say the whole idea is a bad one, from the invasion-of-privacy standpoint to the bad-for-the-environment standpoint.

WhiteBirch

 

[loki09789]

Then you're taxed by one state for driving outside that state too. That doesn't sit well either.

I say the whole idea is a bad one, from the invasion-of-privacy standpoint to the bad-for-the-environment standpoint.

WhiteBirch

Could this also be a form of taxation to counteract the loss of tax revenue because of the shift toward electric/hybrid cars? It is a slow start but alternate power vehicles will improve and become more popular....taxing mileage might be the way that the Gov. is hoping to keep getting money when they won't get it from Gas sales.

 

[Flatlander]

Could this also be a form of taxation to counteract the loss of tax revenue because of the shift toward electric/hybrid cars? It is a slow start but alternate power vehicles will improve and become more popular....taxing mileage might be the way that the Gov. is hoping to keep getting money when they won't get it from Gas sales.

But, why restructure the taxation schedule before the changes upon which it is predicated have been borne out? Until alternative fuels become the norm, I see no reason to reduce taxes on conventional fuels. Furthermore, it is specifically the taxation of fuel, coupled with the ever increasing price point that will encourage people to consider switching to the alternatives. Reducing the taxes does not. Not reducing the taxes on fuel and installing mileage taxes amounts to double taxation, which is also bound to be unpopular.

I see the argument about discouraging urban sprawl, though. That was a good point.

 

[MisterMike]

Taxman
(Harrison) Lead Vocal: Harrison


Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman

'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Ah ah Mister Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Ah ah Mister Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die (Taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (Taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman

 

[rmcrobertson]

Enjoy this sort of thing. There's going to be lots more of it under the Bush regime, all designed to shift tax burdens away from the wealth and from corporations.

 

[Gray Phoenix]

People institute governments. Governments create and enforce laws. In order to create and enforce laws, for the protection of the citizens, funding for the governments' existance and operations must be provided. What alternative source of funding do you suggest we implement fund the establishment of laws.

I agree with this to a point. Unfortunately governments are forced to cater to the lowest common denominator. Our government was established to protect our freedoms. Thus the Bill of Rights. We as a populace have corrupted this ideal with a degree of Marxist philosophies. I am willing to pay taxes for what I use. I'll even, for simplicity, pay an equal percentage as everyone else. The only reason I pay a boat load more than that, is because if I dont, those Marxist corruptions will redistribute what is mine by my own hand/mind, to those who didnt bother to get and education and go to work. Forcing those "evil", rich people, (I'm not one yet), and "greedy" corporations to pay higher rates, is no different than me hacking their bank accounts and giving it to those who I feel deserve it more, or robbing a bank a gun point for the same purpose. The only difference is who is holding the gun.

 

[loki09789]

But, why restructure the taxation schedule before the changes upon which it is predicated have been borne out? Until alternative fuels become the norm, I see no reason to reduce taxes on conventional fuels. Furthermore, it is specifically the taxation of fuel, coupled with the ever increasing price point that will encourage people to consider switching to the alternatives. Reducing the taxes does not. Not reducing the taxes on fuel and installing mileage taxes amounts to double taxation, which is also bound to be unpopular.

I see the argument about discouraging urban sprawl, though. That was a good point.

Call it a pre-emptive, the appearance of a 'tax break' on fossil fuels (which makes everyone feel good), and then the money making machine on alternate energies is already in place and - based on the history of how well people pay attention to politics on the average - can slip under the radar of scrutiny....

People are already resistant to using hybrid/electric cars as well as alternate or "green" energy sources....look out for some heavy tax break incentives for property owners and vehicle owners that have gone 'green' in the future.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Enjoy this sort of thing. There's going to be lots more of it under the Bush regime, all designed to shift tax burdens away from the wealth and from corporations.

Is there one discussion on this board that doesn't have Bush-bashing on it? This has nothing to do with Bush.

1) We have no information about who is proposing this bill (it could be a Democrat who's scared because the government is getting less money),
2) California was a "Blue" state as I recall.

WhiteBirch

 

[Ray]

Is there one discussion on this board that doesn't have Bush-bashing on it? This has nothing to do with Bush.

Ah, heck, let them bash. After all, we won the election.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/133377


:rofl:



http://images.blogads.com/kjnlsjhiu...r=2&d=http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, thank God. Here I thought it was Bush and the Republicans who were shifting tax burdens onto local municipalities and away from the wealthy, as well as pushing the privitization of government services and the sell-off of public holdings.

I'll be sure to remember that as I pay for my, "Forest Adventure," pass so I can park on public land (something that was free until Reagan came along) and I drive south and deal with the traffic swirls caused by the new housing developments going up on all the military land that the government's selling off now.

Much better, now that I know the evil Martians are responsible.

 

[deadhand31]

Here's a thought.... what's to prevent someone from parking a couple hundred feet away from a gas station, and buying gas to go into a gas can? You can always say "It's for my tractor/lawnmower/gokart/weedwhacker." Then what? Without mileage to base it on, there will be no taxes charged. Keep the tax on the fuel, and then you still get the tax money from it.

 

[Phoenix44]

I think we have to a little bit separate motivations and outcomes. Are we taxing to change people's behavior, to reduce fuel consumption, to improve the environment, or just to make money? I find that most taxation is for the purpose of making money, plain and simple.

In the case of the proposal to tax mileage, I think it's all about money. It may reduce OR increase fuel consumption and emissions, because if people drive gas guzzlers, that could outweigh decreased mileage. It certainly could kill one of the incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, and chill alternative energy research and production, which is sorely needed. Of course, some people will buy hybrids not for fuel savings, but for environmental concerns, simply to decrease consumption of fossil fuel, but I do feel, if the environment is a priority, then it is foolish to create decrease the incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.

I also believe that it's unfair to people who must travel longer distances to work, particularly in a climate where good jobs are not readily available anymore. Most people would LOVE to work near their home. Hell, they'd love to work IN their home, but it's not feasible for most of us. When I had my own business, I could walk to my office. The business faltered, and I was forced to take a job...in fact TWO jobs, in order to earn a living. Now I have to travel up to 30 miles per day. I can't just move to follow my job. And if so, which job? And should I uproot my kids every time I lose my job? Or should I consider a less optimal school district? And what if moving closer to MY job is further from my partner's job? It's just not that simple.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ok, first thing: I didn't see anything about a GPS tracking device in the article. It mentioned communication with the odometer, but that only measures how far you've driven, not where and what paths.

The next thing I don't see is how this new system is designed to punish hybrid users. The state needs money to pay for road use; they currently tax gas consumption because that's the primary, if not only, fuel method. Taxing by the mile makes more sense to me, since that's what corresponds with road damage. If hybrids did less damage to the roads, then I'd agree that hybrid users would deserve less of a tax.

 

[Tgace]

Question: Where should the money for road upkeep come from? Its coming from gasoline now. When and if that "dries up" due to better vehicles, where should we get the necessary funds?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Are we are the fat, drunk Romans not noticing the decline of our empire?

Not me, Cassius. I have that lean and hungry look. Thanks to the Atkins diet I ought to look great in a swimsuit by the Ides of March.

If this thing flies in California, let it. It won't take elsewhere.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Question: Where should the money for road upkeep come from? Its coming from gasoline now. When and if that "dries up" due to better vehicles, where should we get the necessary funds?

Raise the fairs on public transportation.

There is every reason to push that fee away from me and my Cadillac Escalade and onto the backs of the working poor who need to take public transportation to their jobs.

Those deisel busses are heavy, so they do much damage to the roads. Most are aged, which makes them horrible polluters. The public Rail systems take up some very valuable real estate, so they should be punished for that too.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Why the sarcastic response? It's a legitimate question, and I'm wondering it myself. It's obviously assuming that hybrid cars are going to replace traditional gas-powered vehicles, but since that's a good thing anyway, what would be the alternate source?