Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile

[PapaG]

I hope he makes this the centerpiece of his 2012 campaign. It's not a tax; it's an "opportunity"!

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

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.

The plan is a part of the administration's "Transportation Opportunities Act," an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

This follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

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.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs, and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $200 million through FY 2017 for the project.


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Is this a joke? I'd be furious if this ever happened! It's already expensive to own and drive a car!
I'd be searching for a job MUCH closer to home if this did come to be.

 

[Blazerfan22]

This is getting outta control IMO, How many more taxes do we need seriously? Maybe they should quit spending on crap like this and maybe we wouldn't be in such a huge hole. Ridiculous

 

[mook]

I would think conservatives would like this plan. It's a pay-per-use, regressive tax plan. Those who drive more pay more, regardless of income. What's the alternative conservative solution? Build and maintain fewer roads? Use more toll roads? Borrow more from China?

Personally, I think it's far too complex and does nothing to put a price on the true military, geopolitical and environmental costs of gasoline. Raise gas taxes and lower taxes in other areas so the effect isn't completely revenue neutral (we need to start paying our way) but the price of gas is in line with our priorities.

 

[RR7]

Hmmm, those who use the roads more, pay more. Sounds good to me.

 

[PapaG]

I would think conservatives would like this plan. It's a pay-per-use, regressive tax plan. Those who drive more pay more, regardless of income. What's the alternative conservative solution? Build and maintain fewer roads? Use more toll roads? Borrow more from China?

Personally, I think it's far too complex and does nothing to put a price on the true military, geopolitical and environmental costs of gasoline. Raise gas taxes and lower taxes in other areas so the effect isn't completely revenue neutral (we need to start paying our way) but the price of gas is in line with our priorities.

Yeah, those conservatives are all about finding new streams of tax revenue for the government.

 

[porkchopexpress]

Is this a joke? I'd be furious if this ever happened! It's already expensive to own and drive a car!
I'd be searching for a job MUCH closer to home if this did come to be.

Why is this a bad thing? There should be some incentive to live close to where you work (or punishment to live far away). We need to figure out a way to limit peoples car usage. This may be the wrong way, in fact I'm pretty sure I'd e against it, but there needs to be something. I'd support a significantly higher gas tax in lieu of this. That way you tax those who not only drive more, but drive less efficient vehicles as well.

 

[PapaG]

Why is this a bad thing? There should be some incentive to live close to where you work (or punishment to live far away). We need to figure out a way to limit peoples car usage. This may be the wrong way, in fact I'm pretty sure I'd e against it, but there needs to be something. I'd support a significantly higher gas tax in lieu of this. That way you tax those who not only drive more, but drive less efficient vehicles as well.

Why?

 

[barfo]

Is this a joke? I'd be furious if this ever happened! It's already expensive to own and drive a car!
I'd be searching for a job MUCH closer to home if this did come to be.

That would be the exact goal, to have you work closer to home.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Why?

pollution
limited supply of oil
dependence on foreign oil
lost productivity
expense of building roads

probably some other benefits I'm not thinking of

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I would think conservatives would like this plan. It's a pay-per-use, regressive tax plan.

Sounds like you actually weren't thinking, then.

Those who drive more pay more, regardless of income. What's the alternative conservative solution? Build and maintain fewer roads? Use more toll roads? Borrow more from China?

I could have sworn there was already a tax on gasoline.

 

[blazerboy30]

pollution
limited supply of oil
dependence on foreign oil
lost productivity
expense of building roads

probably some other benefits I'm not thinking of

barfo

Are you in favor of the proposed tax?

 

[blazerboy30]

Hmmm, those who use the roads more, pay more. Sounds good to me.

Yeah, because that's really how our tax and spend system is set up. If everything was switched to the "those who use it more, pay more" model, this country's infrastructure would fall apart. As a liberal, I'm surprised you would support that.

 

[barfo]

Are you in favor of the proposed tax?

No. I think it is unnecessarily complex - they should just hike the gas tax. True, that lets the electric car drivers off the hook, but right now there are few enough of them that it probably doesn't make much difference. In a few years the answer might be different, though.

Edit: I see now that they are just proposing to study the idea for future implementation. That makes sense to me.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Hmmm, those who use the roads more, pay more. Sounds good to me.

Hey, I like that rationale.

Those who go to Portland Timbers games pay solely for the stadium expansion, and not the taxpayers.

Those who use medical services frequently should pay more than healthy people.

Those who use public transportation should pay solely to subsidize it out of their tax dollars, instead of the entire populuation.

 

[RR7]

Yeah, because that's really how our tax and spend system is set up. If everything was switched to the "those who use it more, pay more" model, this country's infrastructure would fall apart. As a liberal, I'm surprised you would support that.

Well, that's what you get, I suppose, for assuming my political affiliations and my insistence on supporting everything along party lines branlessly.

 

[Shapecity]

It would probably be a net loss after the expenses of installing these tracking systems and paying for the man power to operate the department. I like the concept of it, but I think a better solution is raising the tax on gas higher.

 

[PapaG]

No. I think it is unnecessarily complex - they should just hike the gas tax. True, that lets the electric car drivers off the hook, but right now there are few enough of them that it probably doesn't make much difference. In a few years the answer might be different, though.

Edit: I see now that they are just proposing to study the idea for future implementation. That makes sense to me.

barfo

Electric car users pay energy taxes when they charge their cars, and some of that tax revenue goes to the general fund, which is then budgeted in part to ODOT.

 

[RR7]

Hey, I like that rationale.

Those who go to Portland Timbers games pay solely for the stadium expansion, and not the taxpayers.

Those who use medical services frequently should pay more than healthy people.

Those who use public transportation should pay solely to subsidize it out of their tax dollars, instead of the entire populuation.

Well, there's a difference between SOLELY paying for it, and paying more. Those who use the roads more should pay MORE, not all of it, IMO. Because obviously everyone benefits from the roads being there, through their use by trucks, emergency vehicles and whatever. So those are different examples, what you are saying. Sorry. I don't think they should foot the whole bill.

 

[barfo]

Electric car users pay energy taxes when they charge their cars, and some of that tax revenue goes to the general fund, which is then budgeted in part to ODOT.

True, you could fund it that way as well. And that might be a better solution, since the infrastructure to tax electricity is already set up.

barfo

 

[RR7]

Hey, I like that rationale.

Those who go to Portland Timbers games pay solely for the stadium expansion, and not the taxpayers.

Those who use medical services frequently should pay more than healthy people.

Those who use public transportation should pay solely to subsidize it out of their tax dollars, instead of the entire populuation.

Also, if I use the road for 1 mile, and you use it for 10 miles, you would then pay 10x as much as me. If me and you go both go to the doctor for the same thing, but I go 10x, and you go once, I would pay 10x mroe than you. So it does work that way. If I buy a Tri-Met pass every month, that money goes to help fund Tri-Met, so that is working as well.
And I'm assuming a portion of the income from ticket sales from the Timbers games goes towards the bonds from stadium renovation. I am not 100% on that. So yes, those who use it pay more. Glad we agree.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, there's a difference between SOLELY paying for it, and paying more. Those who use the roads more should pay MORE, not all of it, IMO. Because obviously everyone benefits from the roads being there, through their use by trucks, emergency vehicles and whatever. So those are different examples, what you are saying. Sorry. I don't think they should foot the whole bill.

My point above is that our system is not setup this way. Sure it sounds nice, but you seem to only want this type of system when it taxes the "rich" more. The people who "use" more public education don't pay more for it. The people who use public legal defense don't pay more tax for it. The people who use more public healthcare don't pay more for it.

It seems like you support the "those who use it more, pay more" model only when it is convenient.

 

[RR7]

How exactly does it seem that way? When have I EVER given an opinion on those who use it more pay more for you to make the assumption that I only support it when it is convenient?

 

[PapaG]

Also, if I use the road for 1 mile, and you use it for 10 miles, you would then pay 10x as much as me. If me and you go both go to the doctor for the same thing, but I go 10x, and you go once, I would pay 10x mroe than you. So it does work that way. If I buy a Tri-Met pass every month, that money goes to help fund Tri-Met, so that is working as well.
And I'm assuming a portion of the income from ticket sales from the Timbers games goes towards the bonds from stadium renovation. I am not 100% on that. So yes, those who use it pay more. Glad we agree.

Does the food you eat drop magically from the sky into your house, or does it get to the store via roads?

 

[blazerboy30]

How exactly does it seem that way? When have I EVER given an opinion on those who use it more pay more for you to make the assumption that I only support it when it is convenient?

This thread is one example.

Perhaps I am wrong though. Would you support a tax that only applied to families who send their children to public schools, that families who's children go to private schools don't have to pay?

 

[RR7]

Does the food you eat drop magically from the sky into your house, or does it get to the store via roads?

Well, you'd notice that I mentioned that everyone should pay SOME, because everyone benefits from the roads. Are you not reading everything written, or just looking to pin assumptions and thoughts on people in the discussion. I recognize we all benefit, and thus, all should have a similar portion of general taxes, whatever, given towards the department of transportation. However, if I work from home, and someone else commutes from Salem to Portland every day, they seem to be using MORE of the roads than I am. Since I don't commute like that every day. So they should pay per the miles they drive.
I imagine this would find it's way into increased prices on stuff, as well, as companies like UPS, etc. would add in the mileage into the cost. You again seem to think my position is that it should be SOLELY funded. I already stated once that isn't the case.

 

[RR7]

This thread is one example.

Perhaps I am wrong though. Would you support a tax that only applied to families who send their children to public schools, that families who's children go to private schools don't have to pay?

This thread is an example of me supporting this one issue, and has nothing to do with anything else, so again, your assumptions are off base. Seems like you want to lump liberal positions or thoughts onto me for some reason. Sorry.

 

[blazerboy30]

This thread is an example of me supporting this one issue, and has nothing to do with anything else, so again, your assumptions are off base. Seems like you want to lump liberal positions or thoughts onto me for some reason. Sorry.

Do you want to answer my question?

Would you support a tax that only applied to families who send their children to public schools, that families who's children go to private schools don't have to pay?

 

[RR7]

The University of Oregon is a public University, which receives funding from me, indirectly. If I choose to use its facilities by going there, I pay more. I support that.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Well, you'd notice that I mentioned that everyone should pay SOME, because everyone benefits from the roads. Are you not reading everything written, or just looking to pin assumptions and thoughts on people in the discussion. I recognize we all benefit, and thus, all should have a similar portion of general taxes, whatever, given towards the department of transportation. However, if I work from home, and someone else commutes from Salem to Portland every day, they seem to be using MORE of the roads than I am. Since I don't commute like that every day. So they should pay per the miles they drive.
I imagine this would find it's way into increased prices on stuff, as well, as companies like UPS, etc. would add in the mileage into the cost. You again seem to think my position is that it should be SOLELY funded. I already stated once that isn't the case.

As it has been mentioned but ignored, there is a tax already in place, at least two and at times three. First is the feds, seconed is the state and the third is some citys have their own.

I have seen figures that the average profit per gallon is around 8 cents per gallon, that average tax per gallon of gas is like 48 cents. The taxes were to go to the roads, but have been included in the general fund last I knew.