California looking to impose a tax per mile driven

[Lithium381]

It makes sense to tax for mile driven instead of gas consumption in an age of increasing EV and hybrid tech (even if the former is statistically irrelevant so far).

can you even fathom how much prices will rise for EVERYTHING if truckers have to pay an additional per mile tax? ugh.

even in the bay area, prices for plumbing services will go up because now it's more expensive to drive to your house . . etc

so essentially this is SUPER regressive because companies will pass the cost down to the consumer....

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

This will never fly.

 

[desy]

I don't support this
Yes the fleet overall will become more efficient but tax on gasoline the trucks pay more and the civics pay less currently. Both trucks and cars are becoming more efficient however most places tax gasoline so when oil went up so did their tax revenue, did they complain about that? Or the many places where its tax on tax? No
Suck it up and figure out how you are to pay for roads KNOWING this. Everyone uses roads and not just the people who drive on them, how much are bicyclists paying currently or pedestrians?
Wouldn't it just be easier to tax gasoline higher then rather than to come up with a whole new system?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

you can expect the eco-KOOKS to punitively tax any energy producing/using behavior to further their utopian tyranny agenda. They use "resource" boards and kangaroo courts run and operated by unelected "officials" that make rules that negatively impact your livelihood. eco-KOOKS need to be removed from the public policy loop.

1. Name calling as substitution for debate - check
2. Rhetoric instead of facts - check
3. Invisible bogeyman - check

The perfect trifecta of intellectual lazyness!

 

[sm625]

It doesnt matter how much it costs, or how patently absurd it is. Nothing matters because these orders come from groups like bilderberg. It isnt about saving money, it is about using whatever thinly veiled excuse they can to track and trace every damn thing so they can have total control of the serfs. That's all this is. It dont matter how absurd, how costly, how incredibly huge of debacle it would be. NOTHING of logic or common sense matters because people refuse to see the world for the way it really is. So they're going to get serially raped and violated until they decide the had enough.

 

[IGBT]

1. Name calling as substitution for debate - check
2. Rhetoric instead of facts - check
3. Invisible bogeyman - check

The perfect trifecta of intellectual lazyness!

the unelected "official" has spoken. Kangaroo court judge I'll bet.

 

[bfdd]

maybe they should have thought about this before pushing the high mileage vehicles on everyone. oops. sucks for them.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

the unelected "official" has spoken. Kangaroo court judge I'll bet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA&feature=related

 

[chucky2]

so the modern day problem that you're trying to solve here is "bloated government spending"?

i dont' know how they're going to prove it if i left the GPS at home, i could just say i rode my bike that day . . . . .simply put the GPS is a severe invasion of privacy

No, those who used the roads would pay for them. The same thing I'd advocate for rail: No Fed/State/Local subsidies. You pay for your ride, ticket money pays for the rail. If that means tickets go from $5 a ride to $12 a ride, so be it. At least those not riding aren't paying.

This would be a fairly low cost to implement on vehicles in the US. GPS receiver on top of vehicle, requisite cell (upgradable and standardized so as to cover any needed upgrades if someone keeps their car 30 years down the road), and standardized reporting. Require all manufactures to incorporate this into their vehicles from 2020 onwards.

Venders will design solutions around this for the auto manufacturers, and they'll be implemented.

Where's the problem here?

 

[desy]

It would be like radar detectors, people would find ways to work around or scam it.

 

[chucky2]

You take it out or disable it, your car doesn't run. Sure there will be people that find some illegals ways, but for the most part, people are going to not F with it. It seems a far more fair way to pay for roads than we do now.

 

[desy]

Why is it more fair?
Seems fair now use more gas, pay more tax. . .

 

[Atreus21]

If there was only a way to tax hot air from people's mouths...

 

[chucky2]

It's not fair because non-petro taxes are used from Everyone to help subsidize the roads. Personally I think that's wrong. Just like I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing rail for people in the city, I don't want their tax dollars subsidizing I-57 something they don't ever use.

Those that drive on the roads should pay for them. Those that ride on trains should pay for them. I think that's the most fair thing to do. Maybe it means 18 wheeler truck costs go up substantially. That's fine. They can pass that cost onto whoever they're hauling for, who in turn can pass it onto the customer. I'm really not seeing a problem here.

The only other fair way to do it is increase the taxes on refined petro. But...what will you do when battery and electro related advances and penetration are the majority % of vehicles sold? Say in 30-50 years? It seems like we're bound for my type of solution no matter which way we go...

Chuck

 

[EagleKeeper]

GPS requires access to three satellites. Block the signal, no tracking.

Is CA going to create USB/blue tooth interface that dumps to the DMV when you get smogged.

How to handle out of state drivers?

 

[Lithium381]

so are we more against having to pay by the mile or are we more pissed about big brother wanting to know where we drive?

 

[Wreckem]

I don't support this
Yes the fleet overall will become more efficient but tax on gasoline the trucks pay more and the civics pay less currently. Both trucks and cars are becoming more efficient however most places tax gasoline so when oil went up so did their tax revenue, did they complain about that? Or the many places where its tax on tax? No
Suck it up and figure out how you are to pay for roads KNOWING this. Everyone uses roads and not just the people who drive on them, how much are bicyclists paying currently or pedestrians?
Wouldn't it just be easier to tax gasoline higher then rather than to come up with a whole new system?

It entirely depends on the state. Most states charge a flat tax on gas, not a percentage. Although there are some that do.

As for perdistrians and bicyclists. THey dont cause the degradation of roadways that cars and trucks do.

The gas tax is a tax on gas but its purpose it to pay for road maintenance.

How about states do away with property taxes, gas taxes, fees, misc taxes and just implement a progressive income tax?

No people wont like that either. They dont want to pay any taxes, but yet they want to consume public goods and services.

 

[chucky2]

GPS requires access to three satellites. Block the signal, no tracking.

Not a problem. You simply allow the car to run for some number of miles. If the GPS isn't back on, car doesn't run. Once GPS is back on, charge minimum distance between last signal and current signal; if someone made a two way trip in that time, then they got a freebie. High GPS drops in non-GPS challenged areas generate a mandatory trip to car manufacturers stealership or mechanic. Institute high $$$ fines on person and business interfering with GPS signal.

Is CA going to create USB/blue tooth interface that dumps to the DMV when you get smogged.

Not needed. You aren't moving when you're smogged, you're in one place, so you'd trigger no miles driven.

How to handle out of state drivers?

Implement the same way nationally. No need to worry about out of state drivers, as everyone is on same system.

Chuck

 

[JockoJohnson]

so are we more against having to pay by the mile or are we more pissed about big brother wanting to know where we drive?

Both. Big brother is definitely too big already. Paying by the mile will have to be implemented on a federal level because of truckers, out-of-state workers, vacationers, etc. So now that means even more complicated tax returns. Yippee!!!

 

[chucky2]

Tax returns? Pay per month, just like a credit card. Easy.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

It makes sense to tax for mile driven instead of gas consumption in an age of increasing EV and hybrid tech (even if the former is statistically irrelevant so far).

It depends on what the purpose of the gas tax is. If it's to pay for roads then you can argue it should be taxed per mile. If it's to capture the negative external costs of pollution then it makes sense to tax gasoline. I don't want a GPS in my car but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to an odometer based system if it was revenue neutral.

 

[soulcougher73]

If there was only a way to tax hot air from people's mouths...

I dont think you make enough to cover your taxes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Have to keep the existing vehicle working at tip top shape. Not going to pay twice for some politician's pet project that they want to spend $$ on.

Be very difficult to get the Feds to back it. To many rural states with high mileage roads. Only way would be to remove gas tax and allow each state to institute their own brackets like they do for income tax.
CA wants $0.10 let them. NV may only want a third of that. Live in LA or SF, the rate might be bumped to support pollution efforts or a pet project.

Just like the lottery money for education, the pols will see a cash vow and milk it dry.

 

[WelshBloke]

GPS requires access to three satellites. Block the signal, no tracking.

...

Yeah, what to stop you "tin foil hatting" the GPS before you leave the garage and taking it off when you get home?

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, that is one part of my opposition to this. It could be monitored by odometer type devices as easily.
The other thing that I am wondering about is whether the tax would take into account the weight of the vehicle. Small fuel efficient cars should be taxed less since they don't pollute as much, are easier on roads and don't contribute to the balance of payments problem.

Well if you are saving more money on gas than the heavier vehicles wouldn't that mean that you could afford to pay more in per mile taxes?

Surely you aren't arguing that a persons tax rate should be based solely on the resources that they personally consume?