States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JayinAZ · #16 02-15-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCampbell

I don't understand all the resistance to this. Eliminate the fuel tax used to pay for roadways, and instead tax people based on the number of miles they actually drive on the roads - what could be fairer than that?

How about the massive invasion of privacy? Do you really want big brother knowing where you are every minute of the day? What's next, a fat tax every time your government gps says you go through a McDonald's drive through?

Thanks, but no thanks.

P.E.Haiges · #17 02-15-2005, 07:43 PM

Isn't it about the same as having a kilowatt meter measuring how much electrical energy you use or a water meter measuring how much water you use? Everybody pays their fair share.

That's until the govt. comes up with a way the indigent people don't have to pay their fair share so the welfare Caddilac goes for free.

P E H

boneheaddoctor · #18 02-15-2005, 07:47 PM

And we all know the people stuffing it down your throats will be the very ones to exempt themselves from paying it.................

You know something this has slipped into a political discussion.......a big no-no.

phantoms · #19 02-15-2005, 10:07 PM

Are they going to give you a credit for time you spend driving off of public roads? Say driving around a parking lot, off-road, in your driveway, etc.

It's a bunch of bull. Yes, a lot of cars are more fuel efficient, but everyday there's more drivers.

boneheaddoctor · #20 02-15-2005, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCampbell

I don't understand all the resistance to this. Eliminate the fuel tax used to pay for roadways, and instead tax people based on the number of miles they actually drive on the roads - what could be fairer than that?

Just because you drive a fuel efficient vehicle has absolutely nothing to do with how much wear and tear you cause to the roads - that's a factor of the miles driven. The more you use the roads the more you should pay for that use.

Seems fair to me.

Kevin

Obviously an answer from the left coast.

Around here its the less affluent that have to drive serious miles to get to where they can afford the rent, much less buy a place. The taxes are fine the way they are....in fact they are still too high, because 100% of those taxes are not spent on roads. Meaning there is a surplus NOW.

The people who would get stuck with your tax are the people who could least afford to be paying it. Around here only the longtime homeowners and the wealthy can afford to live within an hours drive of work.

KCampbell · #21 02-15-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Obviously an answer from the left coast.

Around here its the less affluent that have to drive serious miles to get to where they can afford the rent, much less buy a place. The taxes are fine the way they are....in fact they are still too high, because 100% of those taxes are not spent on roads. Meaning there is a surplus NOW.

The people who would get stuck with your tax are the people who could least afford to be paying it. Around here only the longtime homeowners and the wealthy can afford to live within an hours drive of work.

Well, yes, obviously it says right by my name that I live in WA

So what you're saying is that people should pay according to their ability, not according to how much they consume?

How wonderfully socialist

Kevin

aklim · #22 02-15-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbaj007

"I don't understand all the resistance to this. Eliminate the fuel tax used to pay for roadways, and instead tax people based on the number of miles they actually drive on the roads - what could be fairer than that?"

Unfortunately, the governmement NEVER repeals a tax that is already in place. They just add to them!!!

Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Besides that, how do we know that they will spend the money ONLY on highway maintenance and not fluff?

boneheaddoctor · #23 02-15-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCampbell

Well, yes, obviously it says right by my name that I live in WA

So what you're saying is that people should pay according to their ability, not according to how much they consume?

How wonderfully socialist

Kevin

The old tax based on fuel is best....why..........light high milage cars are easier on roads and get better milage....big heavy vehicles are harder on roads and get worse mileage......therefore the vehicles pay for their share of damage porportionately. Making a Peterbuilt and a Ford Festiva pay the same per mile is what would be advocated by the socialists.

phantoms · #24 02-15-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCampbell

So what you're saying is that people should pay according to their ability, not according to how much they consume?

Isn't that how we pay now, by the fuel we consume?

GTStinger · #25 02-15-2005, 11:00 PM

Read about this on slashdot about a month ago. I don't see how the Oregon system could be realistically implimented. The tax is only paid when the vehicle is being filled. Consider the following scenario.

1. Buy a beater vehicle and install the states GPS device.
2. Rarely drive it anywhere but the gas station.
3. Fill up the tank plus the owner added 20 gallon auxilary tank in the trunk. (Or a half dozen cans for the less industrious)
4. Pump fuel out of vehicle and into the rest of your fleet.

Net effect would be buying 30-40 gallons of fuel and only paying a few miles of tax. This system just begs to be abused. Lets not even get into how off road usage would be handled.

aklim · #26 02-15-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTStinger

Read about this on slashdot about a month ago. I don't see how the Oregon system could be realistically implimented. The tax is only paid when the vehicle is being filled. Consider the following scenario.

1. Buy a beater vehicle and install the states GPS device.
2. Rarely drive it anywhere but the gas station.
3. Fill up the tank plus the owner added 20 gallon auxilary tank in the trunk. (Or a half dozen cans for the less industrious)
4. Pump fuel out of vehicle and into the rest of your fleet.

Net effect would be buying 30-40 gallons of fuel and only paying a few miles of tax. This system just begs to be abused. Lets not even get into how off road usage would be handled.

But what if they would insist that the GPS be installed by them?

I suppose that at that point, you could have it installed, go home and remove it and hook it up to a 12V source.

Maybe this won't be so bad after all

83-240D · #27 02-16-2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

But what if they would insist that the GPS be installed by them?

I suppose that at that point, you could have it installed, go home and remove it and hook it up to a 12V source.

Maybe this won't be so bad after all

heavy penalty for tampering with gov. installed devices.

it would be interesting to see how the gov would control want ad sales of cars in the paper or ebay. if you get the title back when you finally pay for the car before a gov gps what can they hoild over your head as a seller? probably nothing but charge the buyer for a gps when he wants to title and plate the car.

i have heard here that with short falls some gummint people are talking about raiding the road tax money. others have stated opposition especially with the plan to completely rebuild i 94 again in 2009. that would be the third rebuild since i moved here in 1998 whan they were in the process of rebuilding then. its crazy but long time wisc folks say illinois is always under construction but keep forgetting that their roads also only last less than 10 years. the gov also wants to widen the road to 4 lanes here and three where it is two lanes in the republican rich western part of milw cty. the folks there don't want a wider road. apparently they like sitting in heavy traffic with the sun in their eyes in both directions

GTStinger · #28 02-16-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

But what if they would insist that the GPS be installed by them?

As I understand the Oregon system; if your daily driver never visits the station, then you never pay fuel tax for that car. The GPS miles are only read when you pull up to the pump. Thus, in the ubove scenario, if only one of your cars ever sees the 10,000 watt lights of 'Gas & Go' then you only pay taxes on that vehicle's miles. Unethical and probably illegal, but true.

mplafleur · #29 02-16-2005, 07:28 AM

That's a pretty crappy article. It leaves more questions than it answers. My guess is that the GPS would only record miles traveled. That's pretty easy to do. It couldn't be used to determine where you are to anybody unless it transmits your location to somebody capable of receiving it. That's a pretty big infrastructure with not enough frequency bandwidth and coverage. Cell phone still don't have 100% coverage. The only transmission is at the pump where you transmit your miles. The pump must then figure out how many miles since you last reported (or the unit resets itself when you fill-up).

But what if you leave the state and come back? Will you pay a state road tax for miles not driven in the state? What if I don't live in the state and visit? Plus every frick'n station will outfit every pump with the device. What if the unit malfunctions or breaks in any other way? Are you libel? etc. etc.

This ain't lookin' good...

#30 02-16-2005, 07:49 AM

Ditto on that Gov.thing, Dennis

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
General Anthony Zinni on 60 Minutes	Joseph Bauers	Off-Topic Discussion	75	05-31-2004 05:17 PM
doubleDrive	pentoman	Off-Topic Discussion	85	10-09-2003 10:42 AM
driver's seat replacement	tlawhorne	Diesel Discussion	8	01-31-2002 02:49 PM