Thinking out of the box
Posted by jimFeb 20
It’s good that some of the administration are at least starting to think outside of the box (and why did someone ever build that box anyway? It’s got to be really big to contain all the people in there, but I digress.) but I’d like Ray LaHood to do a little more thinking, thanks.
Ray has talked to the media about taxing cars not based on a gas tax but based on a miles driven tax. I have multiple concerns about this idea. (Fortunately, so does Barack, so the whole discussion is academic, but still…)
First, the gub’mint isn’t going to stick a GPS unit on my car to track how many miles I drive, period. That’s none of their business even if (as sadly happens to be the case) I never go anywhere controversial or interesting. I don’t trust them to just keep track of the miles.
Second, although I am sure I can be trusted to tell the government the truth about how many miles I’ve driven on my tax returns (he says, as he blushes), there are probably others who won’t be as honest as I am.
Third, I have spent years and years driving cars that get in excess of 30 MPG because I care and now my taxes are going to be the same as some asshole driving a Hummer? I don’t think so. Not. ever. going. to. happen.
Fourth, since my car was built before any such devil devices were created, how do they think I’m going to latch onto one of them gadgets? Are they going to buy me a new car to replace every one we’ve got? I doubt it, although that would probably do more to help the economy than anything. So if I decide to only buy old cars from now on, do I get out of this tax? Tax avoidance is not illegal.
Of course, I see some thinking going on because if car companies start slipping electric cars onto the roads, the taxes taken in from gas taxes will decline sharply. And there’s never enough money in governmental coffers to keep the roads fixed. After all, our roads are pretty good, but the section of I-65N south of Briley can still jar your teeth.
11 comments
Comment by Southern Beale on February 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Seems to me the gas tax does essentially the same thing as a mileage tax, is already in place, and it penalizes people who drive gas guzzlers. I don’t get why we need a “mileage tax” and I’m with you, it’s none of the gummint’s business how far I drive, where I go, etc. If that GPS idea is serious, then count on the ACLU to oppose it — as all civil libertarians should. I’m already uncomfortable with the idea of cell phones and satellite radios having GPS tracking, and that’s not a government mandate.
Count me in the “this is a terrible idea” camp.
Comment by Mack on February 20, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Surely this can be done by sampling…
Comment by democommie on February 21, 2009 at 5:16 am
jim:
It was all foretold by Nostrabeatles:
“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet”
Comment by jim voorhies on February 21, 2009 at 11:53 am
SB, the difference in the taxes lies in your car choices. My car only takes 12 gallons to go 400 miles. A Hummer takes 50. ,My gas taxes are at least proportional to my decision to drive a car that gets damn good mileage and the Hummer driver is stuck with higher taxes, as he or she should for being an asshole.
Mileage taxes would penalize both of us equally, which is unfair.
Comment by Jim on February 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Mileage taxes would penalize both of us equally, which is unfair.”
Thats funny. An equal tax on all people is unfair. In essence, by driving a car that gets better gas milage, you are using more of the roads for less of a fee. That seems unfair to me.
Comment by jim on February 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Equally applied taxes, like sales taxes, are regressive in nature. They impose a greater burden on and consume a larger percentage of the income of the people who can least afford them.
I’m not using more of the road, I’m actually using a significantly smaller footprint in my Honda Fit than someone in a Hummer. I also have less impact on the road because my smaller car is less weight on the road, and thus I am less destructive to the infrastructure.
I may be traveling the same distance (although if someone in a Hummer works where I do and makes the same commute, I’d offer to carpool and cut his gas bill by 85%), so that part of the equation is equal, but the total impact is not.
Solely based on infrastructure impact alone, and not counting mileage considerations, the road impact costs of the Hummer are over 3 1/3 greater. To me, that’s justification for the Hummer owner paying over three times the tax I do.
Comment by Jim the Troll on February 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I do agree that the tax should figure in the weight of your car plus occupants. Your road usage fee would be based on the car weight plus your body weight. You would have to enter your weight at your last doctor’s visit – or maybe this could be done by the new czar position created in the stimulus bill – he could just get it from your electronic medical files.
P.S. I know you felt bad that nobody would troll your blog so I will do the best I can.
Comment by jim on February 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm
But if we agree, can you really be a troll? Although I do appreciate the concern.
Comment by Southern Beale on February 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Is this Memphis Jim? Jim isn’t a troll. He’s more of a noodge, which is Yiddish for pain in the ass. For example:
“In essence, by driving a car that gets better gas milage, you are using more of the roads for less of a fee. That seems unfair to me.”
Well it’s unfair if you’re the asshole driving the Hummer which is the whole point of the tax, ya big fat dummy. The point of the tax is to encourage people to NOT be assholes. Consider it an asshole tax. You can still be an asshole, but you’ll have to pay for it.
Unfair? Only to an asshole.
Comment by Jim the not so good at it Troll on February 24, 2009 at 9:48 am
The point of the tax is to fund road construction. Taxes should not be punishment should they? They should be legitimate charges to cover the costs of government. So the question should become what is a fair and equitable way to fund road construction? In the past, it has been via a gasoline tax. Since all cars used gasoline, all users paid the tax to use the roads. As cars transition to hybrid, fuel cell, pure electric, or other non gasoline powered options, then it makes sense that the gas tax will need to be re-structured to cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads. And for the record, I do drive a very fuel efficient car (not a hybird – those things are EXPENSIVE!) because I do not want to pay more for my travel expenses either.
Comment by democommie on February 25, 2009 at 6:57 am
“The point of the tax is to fund road construction”. This is true, but only because Detroit and Big Oil prevailed, through their lobbyists, to have it have done that way. That tax should have been spent to fund the entire transportation infrastructure. Our railroads suck, largely because the pittance that Amtrack gets is dwarfed by the monies spent on highway contstruction.
I used to work in Boston and for about 10 years put up with the “Big Dig”. At the end of the project you can get into Boston faster–and not find any place to park. The notion that bringing more cars into already gridlocked urban environments might not be a great idea is, apparently, one that the planners never really entertained