Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Tim Howard
By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
– Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET
PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring
ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as
Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric
hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely
with gasoline taxes.
"I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that
we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver
who participated in a recent pilot program.
The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned
about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial
incentive for buying efficient vehicles.
But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though
it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.
Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has
envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.
The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways,
bridges and transit programs in good shape.
But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should
consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more
fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some
much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with
manufacturers."
Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his
budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.
Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would
require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.
In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a
quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge
of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax
proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.
"There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he
said.
Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of
raising gasoline taxes.
The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen
states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS
transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing
drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.
Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland
area, proved the idea could work.
Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great
detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such
as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was
done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.
The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing
the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be
too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline
taxes.
The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small —
"pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.
But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.
For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the
state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.
Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said
he and his task force have assured people that the program does not
track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and
cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
"I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking
issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many
cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.
Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of
incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.
"It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid
would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax
needs to be updated."
Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea
but said it was worth consideration.
"We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just
isn't working."
C. E. White
think if a charge by the mile system is instituted, large trucks MUST
be charged properly. Today's system subsidizes the trucking industry
in a major way. Truckers will not acknowledge this, but the fact are
pretty clear. Of course it is also true that drivers in urban areas
subsidize rural roads and drivers of fuel inefficient vehicles
subsidize Prius owners. A certain amount of unfairness is always going
to be present if we want a good road system not encumbered by
ridiculous tolls.
Ed
Jeff Strickland
You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs associated
with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These costs are
funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using gasoline and
the costs associated with the building and maintenance of the roads and
highways continue, where will the funding come from?
I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting together,
but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of fuel-efficiency
is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of the Oregon plans, I
have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs to the big-rigs on the
mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of the need to build and
maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
u N risr@optonline.net IYM
"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk5cm8$knm$1...@news.motzarella.org...
...as the big-rigs will just pass on the additional costs back to you anyway
in the form of higher priced goods....
My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon, they'll
have a tax for taking a crap. In NY, this Gov. wants to put what basically
amounts to a obesity tax. A 2 litter bottle of Diet Coke will cost $1.30,
while the regular Coke will cost you a $1.50. He must be blind! Taxes are
getting out of control.....Smaller Government & more personable
responsibility will aleivaite much....
IYM
Mike Marlow
wisdom...:
What's worse is that diet drinks don't do crap for controlling weight. The
problem isn't Cokes, the problem is the type of food people eat. What
about those of us that don't drink diet drinks (I hate the taste of the
stuff), and drink the regular formula instead - and... we're not
overweight? So... we get penalized because we can control ourselves?
I can't see where this one has a snowball's chance in hell of standing up.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
bente...@gmail.com
> ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
> how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
> devices in 300 vehicles.
How long do you think it will take the aftermarket to sell us
satellite signal scramblers or some such to defeat the device?
Personally, I don't mind paying my fair share for roads if it is
reasonable and fair.
I like good roads...
ben
bente...@gmail.com
> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due. Secondly, I
> think if a charge by the mile system is instituted, large trucks MUST
> be charged properly.
I agree!
Gas has been essentially gov subsidized for *far* too long.
I believe that at least 2/3 of Exxon's 16 Billion last quarter is
stolen from us with the governments help.
Monopolies are not good for us...
Jeff Strickland
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:gs713kizupz.4m...@40tude.net...
Well, the sheer volume of Diet <anything> will over power the "diet" part of
whatever it is.
My daughter wanted to go to a forum that was going to cost $2500. She sent
out a letter to the community asking for donations of plastic bottles and
aluminum cans.
One of the respondants asked us to come over and clean out his side yard of
2-liter Diet Pepsi bottles. There were hundreds of them! If he (the family)
was drinking one per day, it would have taken him years to collect all of
these bottles. His kid came out to help load the bottles -- the kid was
perhaps 6 feet tall, and must have weighed in well above 300 pounds. He is
17.
Of course, they could have been getting the Diet Pepsi free with the large
pizza, and that would mean the soft drinks were not the problem.
Mike Hunter
taxes and giving it to mass transit, we would not have a problem. Why do
the people that us MT not have to pay there own way? Why do the rural
drivers pay for them to ride for less?
<bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b45ad338-bf60-4933...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
US treasury should be used to maintain the interstate highways. And why
the hell do Alaska and Hawaii get INTERSTATE highway funds or pay the 18.4
cent fuel taxes in the first place?
<bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8e1d2aa-ce66-4c0c...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
dizzy
>My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period.
As our massive government surplus proves!
dizzy
>I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
I've been saying that for a decade or more. If not for stupid,
short-sighted, idiot right-wingers, our country could be in great
shape right now.
The tax should be per gallon, to encourage efficiency.
dizzy
Well, Jeffy, that was a very good post, coming from someone who
actually believes that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old...
Ed Pawlowski
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4k3dm49os5g033187...@4ax.com...
> "IYM" <s u N ri...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period.
>
> As our massive government surplus proves!
>
Only thing proven is that taxes and spending have no relationship to each
other if you are the government. Both parties, both houses are guilty. Time
to toss the tea in the harbor again. Don't increase taxes, cut spending and
waste.
Ed Pawlowski
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Bullshit, don't blame the right wingers. The left spends plenty too. BOTH
are part of the den of thieves.
Toss your neighbors into the mix also. Oh, let's vote yes on building that
new $20 million dollar white elephant, it is only costing us a few pennies,
the federal government will pay for the rest.
Tim Howard
> Are you stupid, or what?
>
> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>
Second of all I see people discussing this issue amongst themselves,
which was also part of my plan.
> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs
> associated with the building and maintenance of roads and highways.
> These costs are funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop
> using gasoline and the costs associated with the building and
> maintenance of the roads and highways continue, where will the funding
> come from?
>
You are missing my point that pollution from autos causes problems and
that means money has to be spent on addressing those problems. Driving
fuel efficient and electric cars saves money by not hurting the
environment so much. We should not be creating the idea in people's
minds that driving cars that don't harm the environment is a bad thing.
What about a state road tax instead? California has proposed a "gas
guzzler" tax on SUVs and big pickups. There are other alternatives.
> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting
> together, but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of
> fuel-efficiency is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of
> the Oregon plans, I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs
> to the big-rigs on the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of
> the need to build and maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>
They might not be deliberately trying to punish those car owners, but
that's what it amounts to. I read a poster in another thread who
likened it to when his city told people to conserve water one year and
then raised the water tax the next year because people conserved so much
they lost too much money.
Tim Howard
>
> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon, they'll
> have a tax for taking a crap.
Umm "they" already do that--sewages taxes. I guess you think sewage
processing is free? I don't think most places have a flat rate on
that--the more you flush the more you pay. Are you worried about that
because you are full of crap?
u N risr@optonline.net IYM
septic system -
....and yes, the only thime I use that system is when I am indeed full of
crap! :)
"Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4966eb7a$0$5475$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Pete M
> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the
price of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything
with an engine bigger than 2.5 litres.
--
Pete M - OMF#9
BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo
Renault 30 TX Auto
"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"
rmac
"Pete M" <pete....@SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gk84t7$pl2$2...@news.motzarella.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>
> You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the price
> of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything with an
> engine bigger than 2.5 litres.
>
I can afford the price of gasoline even if a large tax were to be added.
Please do not assume that everyone is willing to suffer driving an
underpowered, small size automobile to save a few bucks
(or to appease a few overzealous environmentalists).
Charging by the mile is the only fair way to tax.
Mike Hunter
"rmac" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%LN9l.915$ln7...@newsfe04.iad...
dizzy
>"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8m3dm41ph30eegcdb...@4ax.com...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>>
>> I've been saying that for a decade or more. If not for stupid,
>> short-sighted, idiot right-wingers, our country could be in great
>> shape right now.
>>
>> The tax should be per gallon, to encourage efficiency.
>
>Bullshit, don't blame the right wingers.
Why not? It's their fault.
>The left spends plenty too. BOTH
>are part of the den of thieves.
"Spending" isn't bad. "Deficit" spending, "trickle down economics"
are bad.
>Toss your neighbors into the mix also. Oh, let's vote yes on building that
>new $20 million dollar white elephant, it is only costing us a few pennies,
>the federal government will pay for the rest.
It was the Bush gang that decided that it was "bad" to run a surplus
for a while, "bad" to save for a "rainy day". It was the Bush gang
that cut taxes when the enonomy was already going strong (just as
counter-productive as tax increases when the economy needs
stimulation), thus over-heating the economy and leading to the
inevitable hard fall.
This is Macro Economics 101. They blew it.
Pete M
As someone who runs a fleet including a 6.75 litre Bentley Turbo, a 6.7
litre V10 Excursion, a 7.2 Litre Jensen Interceptor III and whos
personal cars include a turbocharged V8 Range Rover (which averages
around 9 MPUSG) I have to agree that fuel prices, if you can afford
them, are irrelevant and will not change your choice of car.
However, I'm also involved closely with the UK secondhand Motor Trade
and when the fuel prices in the UK hit £1.15 UKP / Litre (£5.00 per USG)
combined with a perceived hike in road fund licence on large engined
cars - a lot of the general public believed erroneously that anything
with an engine larger than around 2.0 was going to cost £400 a year in
tax before turning a wheel - the value of anything with a large engine
dropped horrendously. I bought a Range Rover 4.6 around April for £1200,
the garage I bought it from had given £4000 for it as P/X in February
quite reasonably as it had a retail value Jan '08 of £5000. By April it
was almost impossible to sell because nobody knew what it was worth and
buyers of large cars has virtually disappeared in the UK even though the
fuel prices have dropped again.
Scott Dorsey
>
>It was the Bush gang that decided that it was "bad" to run a surplus
>for a while, "bad" to save for a "rainy day". It was the Bush gang
>that cut taxes when the enonomy was already going strong (just as
>counter-productive as tax increases when the economy needs
>stimulation), thus over-heating the economy and leading to the
>inevitable hard fall.
Please note that Bush is an idiot and not necessarily representative
of conservative economic philosophy. Do not claim all conservative
economics is worthless just because one man decided to give all your
tax dollars to his friends instead of using it wisely.
>This is Macro Economics 101. They blew it.
Yes, well, I don't think anyone in the White House was thinking any
farther ahead than his own paycheck.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
John
letters compiled by a Mechanical Engineer of people asking about problems
with cars. Without fail every week its Ford, Holden ( GM) with rare mentions
of Japanese/Korean/European. I,m sure every brand car has the odd
manufacturing problem but most of the faults reported in this column are
design defects. Blokes with 3-4 failed differentials in 2 years, Brake hoses
bursting, porous engine castings that spout oil. Thats probably one reason
you see more Asian cars.
Jeff
> I don't have sewage tax - Luckly, I live out in the burbs and have my own
> septic system -
>
> ....and yes, the only thime I use that system is when I am indeed full of
> crap! :)
Incorrect. You use the system when you are no longer full of crap.
Jeff
> "Tim Howard" <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
Jeff Strickland
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> Are you stupid, or what?
>>
>> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
>> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>>
> First of all, I just posted this, so I have not had time yet to respond.
> Second of all I see people discussing this issue amongst themselves, which
> was also part of my plan.
>
>> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs
>> associated with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These
>> costs are funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using
>> gasoline and the costs associated with the building and maintenance of
>> the roads and highways continue, where will the funding come from?
>>
> You are missing my point that pollution from autos causes problems and
> that means money has to be spent on addressing those problems. Driving
> fuel efficient and electric cars saves money by not hurting the
> environment so much.
But the state wants money for roads and highways. They get through fuel
sales, and if therre are no fuel sales then there are no funds for roads an
dhighways, yet there are still cars rolling upon them.
We should not be creating the idea in people's
> minds that driving cars that don't harm the environment is a bad thing.
> What about a state road tax instead? California has proposed a "gas
> guzzler" tax on SUVs and big pickups. There are other alternatives.
>
That strategy only collects from those vehicles, there are lots of other
vehicles that do not pay their way.
>> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting
>> together, but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of
>> fuel-efficiency is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of
>> the Oregon plans, I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs
>> to the big-rigs on the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of
>> the need to build and maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>>
> They might not be deliberately trying to punish those car owners, but
> that's what it amounts to. I read a poster in another thread who likened
> it to when his city told people to conserve water one year and then raised
> the water tax the next year because people conserved so much they lost too
> much money.
No. It's false to look at it as punishment. It is not punishment to pay for
roads and highways that you use, regardless of how you use them.
I too have been a victim of conservation that worked so well as to cause a
raise in rates -- water rates, the same as in your example. The water
company said to the regulators, "the people are saving so much water that we
don't make any money at this rate, so we need to raise it." The regulators
signed off.
That scenario is different than the road tax issue that you are talking
about. In the road tax, people are still using the roads via a means that
does not generate the revenue needed to build and maintain them, therefore
they are using the roads for free. In the water issue, we are using water
and paying for it.
Floyd Rogers
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> Are you stupid, or what?
>>
>> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
>> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>>
> First of all, I just posted this, so I have not had time yet to respond.
> Second of all I see people discussing this issue amongst themselves, which
> was also part of my plan.
Let's be clear, here. If *you* were *interested* in this, you would
have joined a thread discussing OR's plan 2 years or more ago when
it was first discussed. Or you would have posted to a more appropriate
newsgroup.
And you have no *plan*, you just have ill-formed opinions based
upon reading a few articles in the popular press (rather than professional
journals.)
I don't always agree with Jeff, but so far I'm on board with his criticism.
FloydR
dizzy
>dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>It was the Bush gang that decided that it was "bad" to run a surplus
>>for a while, "bad" to save for a "rainy day". It was the Bush gang
>>that cut taxes when the enonomy was already going strong (just as
>>counter-productive as tax increases when the economy needs
>>stimulation), thus over-heating the economy and leading to the
>>inevitable hard fall.
>
>Please note that Bush is an idiot
Yet he was re-elected after this was apparent. Shame on those who
voted for him the second time.
>and not necessarily representative
>of conservative economic philosophy. Do not claim all conservative
>economics is worthless just because one man decided to give all your
>tax dollars to his friends instead of using it wisely.
Of course not worthless. What true conservative would condone such
reckless deficit spending?
It's just amazing how fucked our leadership has been. Mind-boggling
how Bush's policies were defended by the ignorant and the
short-sighted.
>>This is Macro Economics 101. They blew it.
>
>Yes, well, I don't think anyone in the White House was thinking any
>farther ahead than his own paycheck.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? "Peddle to the metal, until it's time
to stomp on the brakes." And those few of us who can *think* can only
watch in horror as it unfolds.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Well, that's just it, isn't it? "Peddle to the metal, until it's time
>to stomp on the brakes." And those few of us who can *think* can only
>watch in horror as it unfolds.
I watched both the Republican and Democratic primaries pretty carefully,
and the ONLY person running who made any statement about getting the
deficit under control and paying down the debt was Al Sharpton.
When Al Sharpton starts making more sense than anyone else on the ballot,
you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.
SC Tom
> you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.
> --scott
ROTFLMAO!!!
Voyager
True, but then when the government goes bankrupt the welfare state
system that Al loves so much will go away also. Those who refuse to
work have the most to lose when the government goes away.
u N risr@optonline.net IYM
"Jeff" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88ff306c-39d5-45bd...@q36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 8:40 am, "IYM" <s u N r...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I don't have sewage tax - Luckly, I live out in the burbs and have my own
> septic system -
>
> ....and yes, the only thime I use that system is when I am indeed full of
> crap! :)
>Incorrect. You use the system when you are no longer full of crap.
Jeff
Yes you're right - Timing is everything! :)
IYM