Ah yes, "Change you can believe in"...

Keep it up Obama, and the Republican Congressional Landslide in 2010 will cost you the House as well as the Senate...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.

Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/...rint.story

Patently absurd.

1. It will be EXPENSIVE. Development and implementation of such devices will cost money...that means you and I can be expected to foot the bill to pay for things to pay for more things.

2. It's contradictory. We've been toldthat we're "addicted to oil", that we should drive less, carpool, get better efficiency cars...then the gov't stabs its citizens in the back and tries to tax more. The gov't is "addicted to money". Besides, driving less should means roads wear out less quickly. It's not 1-to-1, but I bet it's close.

3. For decades we've been paying taxes to fund research to find better road materials...where's the ROI on this?!

(02-20-2009 11:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Patently absurd.

1. It will be EXPENSIVE. Development and implementation of such devices will cost money...that means you and I can be expected to foot the bill to pay for things to pay for more things.

2. It's contradictory. We've been toldthat we're "addicted to oil", that we should drive less, carpool, get better efficiency cars...then the gov't stabs its citizens in the back and tries to tax more. The gov't is "addicted to money". Besides, driving less should means roads wear out less quickly. It's not 1-to-1, but I bet it's close.

3. For decades we've been paying taxes to fund research to find better road materials...where's the ROI on this?!

Just like the other "So-Called Rights Issues" .... this is not, nor will it ever be about Taxing People on Mileage Usage.

This will be a way to Legally and Warrantlessly Track you and Log Every Move You Make.

This B.S. Mileage Tax is nothing more than convincing mind-numbed idiots that this is the End-All-Beat-All to the Debt, Tax Burdens, GDP/GNP Problems, and will be the Cure for Cancer.

I remember when it cost '1 Cent' to mail a letter by US Post - - then they needed '3 Cents' and that would be all - - BUT WAIT - - now they needed '5 Cents' and never anymore than 5 - - - BUT WAIT !!!! If we would just be happy with '10 Cents Postage', Postal Rates WILL NEVER EVER GO UP AGAIN ... Why We Can Run for 1000 Years at '10 Cents a Letter' said the US Postal Service .....

I am sure glad we still only have to pay just '10 Centers Per Letter' !!!!

.

The technology is here for them to record the data and download the info to the irs. Insurance companies use this technology now to offer discounts to low milage and safe drivers. The device just plugs into the on-board computer of the car. This is a wireless technology so is very easy to do.

You should edit the title to be less reactionary for those who don't read the posts.

Quote:President Obama's transportation department slapped down a suggestion by its own secretary Friday that the government tax motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn.

Quote:Asked about the claim, transportation department spokeswoman Lori Irving immediately shot it down.

"The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100...es-driven/


The article also says several states are looking at implementing programs like this.

Pilot programs were initiated in several cities in 2007.

Quote:Beginning early next year, drivers in six states will begin testing a new way to pay for roads and transit: Commuters will be charged for the miles they drive rather than paying taxes on gasoline purchased.

Researchers from the University of Iowa Public Policy Center will install computers and satellite equipment in the vehicles of 2,700 volunteers — 450 each from Austin, Baltimore, Boise, San Diego, eastern Iowa and the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

Quote:Americans are driving cars that get better mileage, and more are driving vehicles that use fuels taxed at lower rates than gasoline, such as ethanol, or making their own fuel and not being taxed. That means gas tax revenue isn't growing nearly as fast as the number of miles driven.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007...oads_N.htm

Clearly in the West, drivers drive more miles. So the a mileage tax would affect those people more. The GPS model I heard that they are testing, taxes you on the mileage you drive at every fill-up, it automatically added to your bill.

We are being taxed to death, its time to learn to fight back.

(02-20-2009 02:03 PM)OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:  The technology is here for them to record the data and download the info to the irs. Insurance companies use this technology now to offer discounts to low milage and safe drivers. The device just plugs into the on-board computer of the car. This is a wireless technology so is very easy to do.

Even easier than that... record mileage when you get your car inspected. I realize that some people may disable their odometers, but there are certainly black boxes that could collect the data manually

its a joke... someone in a relatively green car that gets 30 mpg, but has to commute to work and uses 50 gal of gas per month will pay more than someone in a Hummer who spends most of their time idling in carpool lines and ALSO uses 50 gal of gas per month? Is there really an emissions difference in terms of environmental impact?

(02-20-2009 02:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  its a joke... someone in a relatively green car that gets 30 mpg, but has to commute to work and uses 50 gal of gas per month will pay more than someone in a Hummer who spends most of their time idling in carpool lines and ALSO uses 50 gal of gas per month? Is there really an emissions difference in terms of environmental impact?

It's allegedly not about emissions, but road maintenance. So the guy idling isn't destroying the roads as much.

But, it could be that simple as the odometer thing. Odometers are all electronic these days, much harder to disable. Someone will try...but you can make it so hard that it's not worth the effort.

(02-20-2009 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 02:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  its a joke... someone in a relatively green car that gets 30 mpg, but has to commute to work and uses 50 gal of gas per month will pay more than someone in a Hummer who spends most of their time idling in carpool lines and ALSO uses 50 gal of gas per month? Is there really an emissions difference in terms of environmental impact?

It's allegedly not about emissions, but road maintenance. So the guy idling isn't destroying the roads as much.

But, it could be that simple as the odometer thing. Odometers are all electronic these days, much harder to disable. Someone will try...but you can make it so hard that it's not worth the effort.

So if it's about road damage, then the 18 wheelers should pony up right. higher freight costs.

(02-20-2009 02:13 PM)At Ease Wrote:  You should edit the title to be less reactionary for those who don't read the posts.

Quote:President Obama's transportation department slapped down a suggestion by its own secretary Friday that the government tax motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn.

This Administration reminds me of the Keystone Cops.... they drop a bomb like this before checking with the Boss.....

Keystone Cops, that sounds raciest to me.

They make the Keystone Cops look good.

Smoking causes health problems
And smoking related health problems lead to overall higher state health care costs
So state encourages people to stop smoking
And state pays for higher state health care costs by taxing cigarettes
So people stop smoking
And state receives less money to pay for continual rise in health care costs, and refuses to spend less on health care.

** State solution you ask? Tax something else, preferably not related to smoking or health in general.

So, lets take the mileage example

Driving causes road problems
And road problems lead to overall higher state transportation costs
So state encourages people to drive less
And state pays for overall higher state transportation costs by taxing vehicles
So people drive less
And state receives less money to pay for continual rise in state transportation costs, and refuses to spend less on transportation costs.

** State solution you ask? Tax something else, preferably not related to transportation in general.

:mysterymachine:

Another thing...

I doubt seriously that a "Mileage Tax" would "replace" the Federal gasoline tax.... They may cut the gasoline tax down to 1/4 what it currently is, but it isn't going to "go away"... and they can rely on the mileage tax for the majority of the funding.

Taxes, as a matter of law, do not ever "go away"...

Its just like the tax on cigarettes... I think a pack of cigs in New York City is something like $8.00 with the tax.

I know Texas layed another $1.00 tax on cigarettes to fund children's health care-- and people still kept smoking just as much.

I guess if you are addicted to it, you will pay whatever it takes to get it.

and I guess we qualify as "gasoline addicits" as well.

That idea is beyond stupid....Bureaucrats have a never ending supply ideas to extract income from people to support their bureaucracies.

Quote:Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers

This reminds me of a story that happened out here in So Cal some years ago: We were in a drought and everyone was mandated to conserve water. We did. Then the water company realized its revenues were down and raised the price of it. Naturally, the price never came back down during the good years.

BTW, fuel efficient cars tend to be much lighter than the big guzzlers so they won't be so hard on the roads.

The absolute DUMBEST idea a bureaucrat ever had. LaHood is La IDIOT!!! First a tax by the mile accomplishes the same thing as a per gallon gasoline tax. Second it does not give any incentive to buy fuel efficient cars. If I'm taxed by the mile, a Car that gets 40 MPG pays the same tax as a car that get 10 MPG. At least the per gallon gasoline tax rewards fuel efficiency. Another example of Obama surrounding himself with incompetent idiots who couldn't find their own #$$ with both hands.

(02-20-2009 03:36 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Smoking causes health problems
And smoking related health problems lead to overall higher state health care costs
So state encourages people to stop smoking
And state pays for higher state health care costs by taxing cigarettes
So people stop smoking
And state receives less money to pay for continual rise in health care costs, and refuses to spend less on health care.

** State solution you ask? Tax something else, preferably not related to smoking or health in general.

So, lets take the mileage example

Driving causes road problems
And road problems lead to overall higher state transportation costs
So state encourages people to drive less
And state pays for overall higher state transportation costs by taxing vehicles
So people drive less
And state receives less money to pay for continual rise in state transportation costs, and refuses to spend less on transportation costs.

** State solution you ask? Tax something else, preferably not related to transportation in general.

:mysterymachine:

I am seeing a property tax on your car. :) It is already being done in Connecticut.

(02-21-2009 02:24 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I am seeing a property tax on your car. :) It is already being done in Connecticut.

...and you're all for it. We went to war over **** like this. Glad to see you're living up to your persona. You'll be the first one lined up in the sights.

(02-20-2009 08:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The absolute DUMBEST idea a bureaucrat ever had. LaHood is La IDIOT!!! First a tax by the mile accomplishes the same thing as a per gallon gasoline tax. Second it does not give any incentive to buy fuel efficient cars. If I'm taxed by the mile, a Car that gets 40 MPG pays the same tax as a car that get 10 MPG. At least the per gallon gasoline tax rewards fuel efficiency. Another example of Obama surrounding himself with incompetent idiots who couldn't find their own #$$ with both hands.

The gas tax is the one tax I don't mind paying. It's more like a user's fee than a regular tax with the benefit of reducing the negative exteranlities associated with driving.

(02-21-2009 09:51 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 08:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The absolute DUMBEST idea a bureaucrat ever had. LaHood is La IDIOT!!! First a tax by the mile accomplishes the same thing as a per gallon gasoline tax. Second it does not give any incentive to buy fuel efficient cars. If I'm taxed by the mile, a Car that gets 40 MPG pays the same tax as a car that get 10 MPG. At least the per gallon gasoline tax rewards fuel efficiency. Another example of Obama surrounding himself with incompetent idiots who couldn't find their own #$$ with both hands.

The gas tax is the one tax I don't mind paying. It's more like a user's fee than a regular tax with the benefit of reducing the negative exteranlities associated with driving.

I tend to agree. I certainly have no problem with user fees as a means of financing infrastructure. I do have a big problem with extraction of my wages without my consent...for ANY reason.