LaHood’s mile tax suggestion out of gas

[ScreamingEagle]

Is there ever a tax that some politicians don't like.....it always starts somewhere....

Obama administration rejects idea, but Oregon pilot program shows promise

The Obama administration on Friday quickly shot down a suggestion by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that motorists pay transportation taxes based on miles traveled instead of gallons consumed.

But states could still adopt a mileage tax approach to funding highway construction, and at least one state is studying the idea.

Transportation planners around the nation have been contemplating a per-mile tax since at least 2002, when a study indicated it’s a practical idea that could be tailored any number of ways, depending on goals. Hummer owners, for instance, could pay a higher per-mile tax than folks in hybrids to encourage conservation. The charge could go up during rush hour to help convince commuters to use trains or buses.

Oregon, the first state in the nation to implement a gas tax back in 1919, is the closest to replacing it with a mileage tax.

A 2006-07 pilot project in which nearly 300 Oregon motorists paid by the mile instead of by the gallon showed that the system might not be as unpopular as it might sound. In the project, GPS units were installed in cars, and taxes were paid at two filling stations that downloaded mileage figures from the units.

More than 90 percent of Oregonians who agreed to allow the gadgets to keep track of their mileage said they’d be willing to keep the devices in their cars if the system was expanded to every gas station in the state, said James Whitty, manager of the Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding at the Oregon Department of Transportation.

Motorists in the Oregon study drove 12 percent less than they would have otherwise, Whitty said.

“If you’re paying by the mile, you keep an eye on it,” said Patrick Cooney, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation.


LaHood’s mile tax suggestion out of gas - Springfield, IL - The State Journal-Register

 

[jgbkab]

You're pretty much paying penalties for driving gas guzzlers. I get 13/17 with my truck and 17/24 with my car and both have 30 gallon tanks. A person with smaller, more gas efficient vehicles will pay less in gas and get much farther. So the people with gas guzzlers are already paying a lot more in taxes.

 

[auditor0007]

I have a better idea. If governments really need to increase tax revenues, why don't they tax the air we breath? When you go to the doctor, your doctor could test your lungs to see how much air you take in on average. This information could be sent to Big Brother, and they could send you a monthly tax bill based on how much air you breath. Anyone interested in saving money could choose to quit breathing. Just think of the health care savings.

 

[DiveCon]

I have a better idea. If governments really need to increase tax revenues, why don't they tax the air we breath? When you go to the doctor, your doctor could test your lungs to see how much air you take in on average. This information could be sent to Big Brother, and they could send you a monthly tax bill based on how much air you breath. Anyone interested in saving money could choose to quit breathing. Just think of the health care savings.

you better hope none of the democrats in congress reads this

 

[editec]

I have a better idea. If governments really need to increase tax revenues, why don't they tax the air we breath? When you go to the doctor, your doctor could test your lungs to see how much air you take in on average. This information could be sent to Big Brother, and they could send you a monthly tax bill based on how much air you breath. Anyone interested in saving money could choose to quit breathing. Just think of the health care savings.

you better hope none of the democrats in congress reads this

This isn't a Democratic tax policy.

This isn't a Republican tax policy, either.

This is a solution to a problem we do not have.

The user tax on gasoline is a perfectly sensible system for taxation if we must tax gas at all.

 

[michiganFats]

Mileage is already taxed. You drive more miles, you fill up more, you pay tax at the pump. You don't drive so much, you buy less gas, you pay less tax. All this appears to be is an excuse for Government to get people used to having some sort of monitoring system in their cars.

 

[auditor0007]

Mileage is already taxed. You drive more miles, you fill up more, you pay tax at the pump. You don't drive so much, you buy less gas, you pay less tax. All this appears to be is an excuse for Government to get people used to having some sort of monitoring system in their cars.

Why would the government need to know how much we drive? Are you worried that sometime in the future they might want to tell us exactly how much we can drive, and that this could be used as a tool to restrict how much we drive?

 

[michiganFats]

Mileage is already taxed. You drive more miles, you fill up more, you pay tax at the pump. You don't drive so much, you buy less gas, you pay less tax. All this appears to be is an excuse for Government to get people used to having some sort of monitoring system in their cars.

Why would the government need to know how much we drive? Are you worried that sometime in the future they might want to tell us exactly how much we can drive, and that this could be used as a tool to restrict how much we drive?

I can think of several reasons the Government would want devices in vehicles. As to what exactly they have planned,I can only guess. The only thing I know for sure is that the reason given in this instance for GPS devices is redundant. We are already taxed by mileage.

 

[editec]

Nothing about this proposal makes sense as it regards tax revenue.

Ergo it probably isn't entirely paranoid to assume that the real reason this so called change in taxation plan is being floated is something other than the stated purpose.

In order to really get a handle on how much people drive, there would have to be some mechanism which constantly monitored our movements.

Because that's about the ONLY reason our government would even consider changing the gasoline tax system we have right now.

What we have now is the most efficient way to tax people for driving, plus it is the most accurate way to tax people for driving, too.

This proposed system simply makes no sense EXCEPT to serve some other unstated purpose.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Nothing about this proposal makes sense as it regards tax revenue.

Ergo it probably isn't entirely paranoid to assume that the real reason this so called change in taxation plan is being floated is something other than the stated purpose.

In order to really get a handle on how much people drive, there would have to be some mechanism which constantly monitored our movements.

Because that's about the ONLY reason our government would even consider changing the gasoline tax system we have right now.

What we have now is the most efficient way to tax people for driving, plus it is the most accurate way to tax people for driving, too.

This proposed system simply makes no sense EXCEPT to serve some other unstated purpose.

what about the guy who needs a vehicle for the job,like a truck,his cost will just be passed on to his customers.....how about those who HAVE to drive to work.....a stupid idea by people not in the REAL world...

 

[Mr. President]

They aren't putting a tracking device in my vehicle

 

[DiveCon]

Nothing about this proposal makes sense as it regards tax revenue.

Ergo it probably isn't entirely paranoid to assume that the real reason this so called change in taxation plan is being floated is something other than the stated purpose.

In order to really get a handle on how much people drive, there would have to be some mechanism which constantly monitored our movements.

Because that's about the ONLY reason our government would even consider changing the gasoline tax system we have right now.

What we have now is the most efficient way to tax people for driving, plus it is the most accurate way to tax people for driving, too.

This proposed system simply makes no sense EXCEPT to serve some other unstated purpose.

that is a logical conclusion
i would also oppose this as a government intrusion into personal privacy
they have no need to GPS track non-criminals