Here we go again:
The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.
[. . .]
Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.
As noted here earlier when a CBO report supported the same idea, because of the gasoline tax, those who drive more already pay more. So let's have a show of hands. How many of you think th
Comments
How many people believe that if the Gestapo (I mean government) is allowed to put a device in our vehicles that tracks our miles, that the device might also track where we're at?
Phil: Please Google "Godwin's Law."
BTW, I have a device in my car that keeps track of miles. I call it an "odometer."
Small Place .....: Godwins Law applies to the "length of time that a discussion has been going on" - Since this thread just started, it probably does not apply to this.
Also, an "odometer" does record the miles but does not "track" them - so you device doesn't fit.
With the advent of electric vehicles we face a dilema of funding roads. If no one drove, roads would still degrade. In simple terms there is a base cost to having roads. In addition to the base cost of roads, weight of a vehicle also degrades roads; increased vehicle weight, higher cost to maintain. The speed at which one drives also affects maintenance costs. Faster speeds increase the dynamic load a car exerts on the road surface as it bounces along the road. A smooth road reduces the force downward, but each seam, each pot hole or bump causes the vehicle to go up and then down.
Petroleum fuel is taxed by the state and feds to pay for roads. electric vehicles do not use this fuel and under current legislation will not pay to fund maintenance yet generally are heavier than normal cars.
The tax per gallon used to have some what of a basis; heavier vehicles have poorer mpg. However, as vehicles get more mpg, the revenues decrease per mile driven.
The only fair solution is to pay based on;
miles driven
weight of vehicle
Implementation of this type of funding basis is a problem
john b. kalb: "Also, an
little john,
My Gestapo comment was simply pointing out the comparison between one historically heavy-handed government and the way ours is currently trending. I could have said the KGB and it would have applied just as well. Anyway, it looks like the curse is now broken since the conversation continued.
And that device currently in your car - it doesn
William,
I disagree. People who choose to buy fuel efficient vehicles lower the cost of gasoline for all of us, and I think they should reap some reward for that. I think the current system of per gallon taxation is fair.
And just what percentage of road construction/maintenance is paid for by gas tax, BTW?
A person who drives 12,000 miles a year with a 30 mpg rating uses more gas than a person who drives 6,000 miles a year with a 25mpg rating. A fuel efficient car can actually use far more gallons then a hog.
William,
Yes, but the person who drives 12,000 miles a year with a 30 mpg rating pays tax on 400 gallons, while the person who drives 6,000 miles a year with a 25mpg rating only pays tax on 240 gallons. So the bigger consumer still pays more for it. But if you take the same two cars, and drive them the same number of miles, the more efficient car will consume 5/6 the amount of gas as the other and therefore pay 5/6 the taxes.
My argument is that the gas tax should not just factor in miles driven, but also efficiency of car and driving habits. Gas prices are a function of supply and demand. So, since the more efficient car/driver reduces the amount of gas they would otherwise use with less efficient car/methods, regardless of how many miles they actually drive.
This is not a math problem. I know better than to challenge you there. J It is a normative issue because it is strictly a matter of opinion whether one thinks it is fair to use taxes to punish inefficiency or reward efficiency. In most cases, I would say it is none of the government
Michaelk42
I had a little trouble finding reliable sources, but from what
Federal Fuel tax I believe is 52 cents per gallon.
Indiana Fuel tax is 18 cents per gallon plus the 7% sales tax.
The cost to build and maintain a road is based on the number of miles driven, speed and weight of the vehicle. If everyone has high MPG vehicles, who pays to maintain the roads?
I always thought the sticker on the bumpers of trucks was rude "This truck paid $8,000 in road taxes last year!" That may be true but it tore up $25,000 dollars worth of road doing it. What our fuel tax does is pass the major cost of road onto small vehicles from large ones. This is nothing less than a subsidy to trucking companies. Without this, most long hall trucks would be gone and trains would be used which are by far more efficient.
William Larsen: "The cost to build and maintain a road is based on the number of miles driven, speed and weight of the vehicle. If everyone has high MPG vehicles, who pays to maintain the roads?"
That's not ALL the story. The tires matter, as does the practice of raking leaves into the street.
It's not so much the weight of the vehicle, as the pressure per square inch that matters. A heavier car with wide tires does less harm than a light econobox with skinny tires. Similarly, a vehicle running 28 PSI in their tires does less harm than a vehicle running 65 PSI in their tires, because the tire does more of the giving, instead of the road. Pumping more air into your tires, though, produces less rolling resistance, and more miles per gallon.
People who rake their leaves into the street also contribute to high maintenance costs. When roads cannot drain rapidly, they end up with subsoil moisture that freezes, causing heaving.
Anyone who lived in the Fort Wayne area in the 1970s should be able to think of another important reason not to rake leaves into the street, as well. I'd like never to have THAT tragedy be repeated.
I know this is a bit removed from the topic of the original post, but since we have moved to air in tires I am going to go ahead and ask. Would inflating tires with helium have any noticable impact on mileage? Seems it would make the vehicle lighter.
Nice creative thought, Phil!
An F78x15 tire at 30 PSI should have about 26 grams of air. Substitute helium, and it's 4 grams. That's unsprung, spinning weight, but still, you're talking less than 4 ounces weight for the entire vehicle.
Drinking a cup of coffee would probably cost you more mileage than switching to helium would save you. And Helium isn't as small as hydrogen but it's still a lot smaller than nitrogen or oxygen; your tires would go flat awfully fast.
And it'd make your tires talk funny, wouldn't it?
Harl, you are correct. I simplified it a bit too much. The dynamic load on the road is what is crucial as well as drainage.
When I raced bikes, there was a lot of effort in reducing the weight of frame. In reality the weight that pays the most to remove is on a rotating part. The thought was for every ounce removed from a rotating part (pedals, chain, wheel assembly) one pound of force was removed from moving it forward. I never have done the calculation to verify this, but there is logic behind it.