An idea with which no one can be happy, right?

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

(CBS) College student Jayson Just commutes an odometer-spinning 2,000 miles a month. As CBS News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, his monthly gas bill once topped his car payment.

"I was paying about $500 a month," says Just.

So Just bought a fuel efficient hybrid and said goodbye to his gas-guzzling BMW.

And what kind of mileage does he get?

"The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on the highway," says Just.

And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead.

Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile (javascript:vlaunch('clip=/media/2005/02/14/video674142.rm&sec=3420&vidId=3420&title=TaxingByTheMile&hitboxMLC=eveningnews');)."

Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already started road testing the idea.

"Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim.

Kim and his team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.

"So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a certain fee which will be, let's say, one tenth of what someone pays if they drive 100 miles," says Kim.

The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe.

The system could also track how often you drive during rush hour and charge higher fees to discourage peak use. That's an idea that could break the bottleneck on California's freeways.

"We're getting a lot of interest from other states," says Jim Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. "They're watching what we're doing.

"Transportation officials across the country are concerned about what's going to happen with the gas tax revenues."

Privacy advocates say it's more like big brother riding on your bumper, not to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars.

"It's not fair for people like me who have to commute, and we don't have any choice but take the freeways," says Just. "We shouldn't have to be taxed."

But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.
So--we have the "government interference in our lives" aspect of mandatory GPS in our cars.

We have the "we will increase your taxes" aspect of the plan.

We have the "let's discourage people from being fuel efficient and worrying about the environment" aspect of the plan.

Can anyone other than local government officials be in favor of this? It seems to offend every major political school of thought in this country. You don't see many successful politicians run on the "Higher Taxes! More Government Interference! Dirtier Air and Water!" platform anymore.

[Ksyrup]

They'll get their money one way or the other. Frankly, I'd rather have a consumptive use tax for streets than get stung 3 times a month by speed traps so that the locals can make the same money.

[Huckleberry]

You're still going to spend less on gas each month with a more efficient vehicle. And the number of people that don't have a problem with this plan will go up exponentially once the lack of transportation funds shows up in the way of potholes all over their favorite routes.

[Klinglerware]

Somebody has to pay for the roads. Quite frankly, I don't mind being taxed or tolled if it means that the roads will be in excellent condition. I used to live in New Jersey, where it seems everything was tolled--but the roads were in pretty good shape. I now live in a state without tolls and the roads are in much crappier condition...

[albionmoonlight]

I understand that roads are one of the sacred cows of government. And I am the last American left that beleives that it is ok for the government to collect revenue and use it for the common good.

But it seems that you could accomplish much the same goals by just increasing the tax on cars generally. You get rid of the GPS problem. You get rid of the "encouraging fuel consumption" problem. You still end up taking in more revenue, but there really is no way around that.

[cuervo72]

What about cases where you travel a good deal in other states? I work in PA but live in MD for instance. Of course, I would just fill up wherever the tax is less if both states didn't have the same regulation...

[Ksyrup]

But the idea with a consumptive use tax is fairness - people who stay in hotels pay the hotel tax, rather than spread those taxes to the rest of us. You use it, you pay. I don't have a problem, in theory, with making roads the same way. Why charge everyone more for just owning a car, when what you're really getting at is the condition of roads and the idea that the more you drive, the more you should contribute to maintaining the roads.

Of course, the logical extension of this would be to factor in the type of car/truck and the relative wear and tear that comes from each. It could get more complicated than it's worth, but the idea isn't so off-base to me.

[cuervo72]

Don't they already have tolls for this sort of thing?

[Lathum]

The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on the highway," says Just

Shouldn't you get higher mileage on the highway?

[albionmoonlight]

But the idea with a consumptive use tax is fairness - people who stay in hotels pay the hotel tax, rather than spread those taxes to the rest of us. You use it, you pay. I don't have a problem, in theory, with making roads the same way. Why charge everyone more for just owning a car, when what you're really getting at is the condition of roads and the idea that the more you drive, the more you should contribute to maintaining the roads.

Of course, the logical extension of this would be to factor in the type of car/truck and the relative wear and tear that comes from each. It could get more complicated than it's worth, but the idea isn't so off-base to me.
This might just come down to public policy. I would rather a more "unfair" system if it kept mandated GPS out of my car. However, maybe making ones annual car tax tied to the odomoter (sp?) reading would be a way to get the best of all worlds.

[Ksyrup]

Don't they already have tolls for this sort of thing?
I think the idea would be to do away with toll roads (or at least, not have to set up that kind of system for every single road there is), and to have you pay the "toll" when you gas up.

It wouldn't be limited to certain streets...and of course, gas would be cheaper because the tax wouldn't be included. Like I said above, that's where I'd want such a plan closely scrutinized, because this could be used to make more money off of even average drivers, which I would not be in favor of.

[albionmoonlight]

Shouldn't you get higher mileage on the highway?
You do with normal cars because of the stop/start of city driving.

But Hybrids find their efficiency, in large part, by shutting down the engine and going to electric power when the car is stopped. That savings is enough to offset and more the losses caused by constant stopping/starting.

[QuikSand]

We have the "we will increase your taxes" aspect of the plan.

Isn't it technically just an argument for "we will increase some people's taxes and decrease other people's taxes, to maintain the same revenue stream we need."

If there then becomes an argument that more revenues are needed, so be it - rail against that. But on its surface, I don't see that here.

[cartman]

They'll get their money one way or the other. Frankly, I'd rather have a consumptive use tax for streets than get stung 3 times a month by speed traps so that the locals can make the same money.

The way I'd see it, you'd end up paying both. They'd ding you with the by the mile tax, then figure out how to use the GPS info to see if you were speeding, and hit you with that as well.

[Danny]

One word: Teleportation

[Ksyrup]

This might just come down to public policy. I would rather a more "unfair" system if it kept mandated GPS out of my car. However, maybe making ones annual car tax tied to the odomoter (sp?) reading would be a way to get the best of all worlds.
I wouldn't have a problem with that - except in Florida, we pay one car tax at purchase, and no annual car tax. But I don't mind paying one based on the odometer, as long as the gas tax is nixed.

[flere-imsaho]

A simpler, but much more politically-charged, solution would be to just increase taxes on gas. As I understand it, these are the usual counter-arguments:


Would hurt farmers - Well, we already subsidize farmers anyway (including for gas, just increase that subsidy as necessary.
Would drive shipping/trucking costs up - They'll have to either pass along the costs to the consumer, and/or find more efficient ways of shipping/freight management.
It's my right to own a gas-guzzling car! That's what made America great! - The beauty of this solution is that it allows this. You just have to pay more for gas.


I'm probably missing a few more, but there you go.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm moving slower than usual this morning (and so is my brain apparently), so maybe I'm just misfiguring something here but ... if the same scheme were applied in Georgia, it seems to be something that would shift some of the burden away from city dwellers (who burn gas while stuck in rush hours) toward rural drivers who sometimes cover more mileage. Under the premise of "wear-and-tear-tax", that makes sense, but it seems to fail somewhat the more general notion of "he-who-uses-pays" -- just because some cars are spending more time sitting than moving doesn't mean they aren't using the roads too.

[albionmoonlight]

Isn't it technically just an argument for "we will increase some people's taxes and decrease other people's taxes, to maintain the same revenue stream we need."

If there then becomes an argument that more revenues are needed, so be it - rail against that. But on its surface, I don't see that here.
A fair point. I was working on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that people would view this as an increase in taxes--even if it is offset by the fact that people are paying less gas tax by consuming less gas.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm moving slower than usual this morning (and so is my brain apparently), so maybe I'm just misfiguring something here but ... if the same scheme were applied in Georgia, it seems to be something that would shift some of the burden away from city dwellers (who burn gas while stuck in rush hours) toward rural drivers who sometimes cover more mileage. Under the premise of "wear-and-tear-tax", that makes sense, but it seems to fail somewhat the more general notion of "he-who-uses-pays" -- just because some cars are spending more time sitting than moving doesn't mean they aren't using the roads too.
Good point.

[Chubby]

I'm moving slower than usual this morning (and so is my brain apparently), so maybe I'm just misfiguring something here but ... if the same scheme were applied in Georgia, it seems to be something that would shift some of the burden away from city dwellers (who burn gas while stuck in rush hours) toward rural drivers who sometimes cover more mileage. Under the premise of "wear-and-tear-tax", that makes sense, but it seems to fail somewhat the more general notion of "he-who-uses-pays" -- just because some cars are spending more time sitting than moving doesn't mean they aren't using the roads too.
And in doing so pushes more tax burden from the $30,000 SUV owners who can afford more taxes to Joe Blow who drives a Yugo 100 miles to Burger King t omake his minimum wage...

[Ksyrup]

I'm moving slower than usual this morning (and so is my brain apparently), so maybe I'm just misfiguring something here but ... if the same scheme were applied in Georgia, it seems to be something that would shift some of the burden away from city dwellers (who burn gas while stuck in rush hours) toward rural drivers who sometimes cover more mileage. Under the premise of "wear-and-tear-tax", that makes sense, but it seems to fail somewhat the more general notion of "he-who-uses-pays" -- just because some cars are spending more time sitting than moving doesn't mean they aren't using the roads too.
That's sort of where I was going with the idea that the type of car might factor in, and a bunch of technical things might make such a proposal - in order for it to be truly fair - difficult to implement in reality.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And in doing so pushes more tax burden from the $30,000 SUV owners who can afford more taxes to Joe Blow who drives a Yugo 100 miles to Burger King t omake his minimum wage...

Maybe a state-by-state thing, but I can't really think of too many "Burger King Bill" types that were driving 60-80 miles each way to work (about 30-40 miles is the max I can think of). At least down here, the uber-commute is pretty much the domain of the SUV crowd.

But that really might be a geographical thing, not every place is like here, with bad mass transit, a gigantic "metro" area (2nd largest square mile area IIRC), etc.

[gstelmack]

The big issue I have with this is the government-mandated GPS in the vehicle. Can't they hook up to the existing engine computers and find out how far you've driven?

[KeyserSoze]

I shall increase gas taxes, so the people will have an incentive to buy efficient cars. At the end, if all people uses hybrid cars will pay the same amount that nowadays. But if you still wants a heavy contaminated car, you will pay it heavily. At least for me, nice solution

[Klinglerware]

A simpler, but much more politically-charged, solution would be to just increase taxes on gas. As I understand it, these are the usual counter-arguments:


Would hurt farmers - Well, we already subsidize farmers anyway (including for gas, just increase that subsidy as necessary.
Would drive shipping/trucking costs up - They'll have to either pass along the costs to the consumer, and/or find more efficient ways of shipping/freight management.
It's my right to own a gas-guzzling car! That's what made America great! - The beauty of this solution is that it allows this. You just have to pay more for gas.


I'm probably missing a few more, but there you go.


The issue is whether a gas tax is unfair to less fuel efficient vehicles. A hybrid driven 10,000 miles takes advantage of road maintainence funds equally as an gas guzzler driven 10,000 miles. If one relied solely on an increased gas tax, hybrid owners would be in effect paying less than their fair share to maintain the roads. The logic behind the mileage tax is that the mileage tax will allow road maintainence costs to be shouldered more equitably--those who drive more should pay more.

[CraigSca]

If they made roads out of soybeans and kudzoo like I proposed 30 years ago, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[cuervo72]

How do you apply this tax when you are buying gas for your lawn mower?

[Surtt]

Am I the only one bothered by the government monitoring my every movement?

[Klinglerware]

Am I the only one bothered by the government monitoring my every movement?

I could deal with it if it was a simple odometer reading as suggested in the article. Or perhaps they can get it when you get your car inspected, it would be like the energy company coming to read the meter...

[sabotai]

In NJ, we pay very little in gas tax, most of the major highways use tolls and all of the major roads are well maintained. This just sounds like an overly complicated solution.

[Surtt]

One of the scarcest things I've read in a while.

Basically, back in 2001 a rental company tracked its cars movements via onstar and fined its customers for speeding.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530115.html?legacy=zdnn

[sabotai]

"When Turner contested the charges, Acme was able to point out on a map exactly where he exceeded the company's threshold speed of 79 mph."

Nope, no sympathy from me.

[SackAttack]

...and of course, gas would be cheaper because the tax wouldn't be included.

I tend to doubt that, actually. The gas tax wouldn't be included, but what's to stop the oil companies from saying "Well, we charged $2.15/gallon yesterday when the tax was in effect, it's not in effect anymore today, so that's an extra 18c/gallon for us!" and just leaving prices alone? I think that's more likely, actually, than seeing an instant price rollback once the state gas taxes were gone.

Or, even if there were a brief rollback, it'd quickly climb back up again.

[sterlingice]

I can't believe that there is a problem with not enough taxes because of people owning a hybrid! My head just wants to explode at the very notion of "Stop buying hybrids! We need polluting cars for tax purposes!"

In Kansas we have the turnpike which funds quite a bit of roadwork in the state. Maybe it pushes some of the trucking traffic into Nebraska and Oklahoma but I think it's a good system for paying for our roads.

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Seriously... if California does this, I'm moving.

[Ksyrup]

I tend to doubt that, actually. The gas tax wouldn't be included, but what's to stop the oil companies from saying "Well, we charged $2.15/gallon yesterday when the tax was in effect, it's not in effect anymore today, so that's an extra 18c/gallon for us!" and just leaving prices alone? I think that's more likely, actually, than seeing an instant price rollback once the state gas taxes were gone.

Or, even if there were a brief rollback, it'd quickly climb back up again.
I can tell you from a practical standpoint that in August, Florida rolled back its state gas tax 8 cents, and every penny came off the pumps that day. There were fluctuations in price during the course of the month, of course, but by and large, we paid 8 cents less for the entire month, and when it ended, it shot right back up.

[Ksyrup]

One of the scarcest things I've read in a while.

Basically, back in 2001 a rental company tracked its cars movements via onstar and fined its customers for speeding.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530115.html?legacy=zdnn

Maybe this will help you get over it:


July 21, 2003

<TABLE width=450><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) Commissioner James T. Fleming today commended a Superior Court decision to dismiss an appeal filed by ACME Rent-A-Car regarding a February 2002 DCP order that forced the car rental agency to stop using Global Positioning System (GPS) to track the speeds of its drivers and subsequently fine those drivers who exceed 79 miles per hour for more than two minutes $150.

The court ruling found that the $150 was not, as the rental agency claimed, a fee for possible wear and damage done to a vehicle that is driven at 79 miles per hour or faster.

"This ruling means that rental companies cannot gouge consumers under the guise of reducing drivers' speeding or vehicle wear and tear. Nor can they secretly track and fine them. Outrageously unfair, exorbitant fees will not be tolerated," Blumenthal said. "The court rightly found no legitimate reason for the $150 fee - no factual link to support the claim of wear and tear - and consumers were offered no recourse or appeals process to contest the fee. We have stopped ACME's practice of secretly tracking and fining consumers."

Commissioner James T. Fleming lauded Kevin E. Booth's thoughtful decision. "ACME had no legitimate basis for charging consumers an excessive fee for driving a rental vehicle over 79 miles an hour. Furthermore, the fee of $150 is a burden that rental customers should have never been asked to pay. The practice of tracking consumers and charging their credit or debit card is oppressive and now formally illegal. Connecticut consumers are clearly the winners today."

The DCP filed a complaint against ACME in June 2001, and a hearing on the rental agency's practices took place in the fall of 2001. DCP Commissioner Fleming issued his ruling ordering ACME to halt its practices and reimburse consumers the $150 fine in February 2002.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[QuikSand]

Oh, and back to the original story -- no college student ought to drive a car that gets 4 miles to the gallon, period.

[QuikSand]

On the original issue, this comes down to an age-old question. Assuming (for the moment) we could settle on how much it costs to properly maintain our roads, and setting aside more troublesome issues like transit and the like, we can isolate this policy issue as follows:

What is the appropriate way to pay for our road system?

#1 - Suppprt it by general taxation, where people pay based on their income, wealth, or participation in generally taxable activities or transactions, as determined by the political process.

#2 - Support it by user fees, with revenues designed to best identify those who are benefitting from and burdening the roads being supported, and having those people bear proportionate responsibility for their support.

#3 - Support it by user fees, but design the fees/taxes as an instrument to affect public behavior, giving allowances to activites deemed beneficial, and extra penalties on those activities deemed harmful.


Essentially, the old model for supporting roads was a decent attempt at #2 above -- the gas tax, more or less, has everyone who drives on the roads chip in, in proportion to the amount you drive. Imperfect, but conceptually pretty defensible.

The article above is suggesting that if we want to continue with the concept of #2 from above, then we might need to change the tax system, since widely disparate gas mileage is making the underlying concept of "gallons of gas = wear on the road" less and less valid than before. Probably a true argument, though probably overstated by the implications of the article, in my judgment.

As we consider this, we have a third voice entering -- saying basically that #3 above is a wirthwhile policy to embrace, in part, at least. And that the old system of gas taxes, basically set up as #2 above, happens to accomplish the goals of #3 above pretty well -- low-mileage cars that might pollute more will end up paying more in gas taxes.


There's really nothing wrong with either perspective #2 or #3 above, but they run into one another a bit on this issue, it seems.

[Tekneek]

I would gladly pay a toll for every road I drive on, if I could then deduct that from my income tax. I don't have a problem paying my way, but I refuse to pay my way plus others. There's enough pork in the budget to cover the difference, if they really wanted to do it.

[Tekneek]

The article above is suggesting that if we want to continue with the concept of #2 from above, then we might need to change the tax system, since widely disparate gas mileage is making the underlying concept of "gallons of gas = wear on the road" less and less valid than before. Probably a true argument, though probably overstated by the implications of the article, in my judgment.

The first time I heard about this, it was because the owners of SUVs felt they were paying a disproportionate amount of the "gas tax", because their vehicles were less fuel efficient than most vehicles. This is just a new twist to try and further that cause.