Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/18/news/ec ... htm?hpt=T2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Washington lawmakers are kicking around a new idea to help raise funds to fix our highways and infrastructure: a national driving tax charging motorists by the mile.

A driving tax could either replace the current 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax or, possibly, add to it.

Because greater fuel economy is letting motorists drive more miles using less gas, the current gas tax that funds the federal government's efforts to build and maintain highways isn't generating enough money.

A driving tax, officially known as a "vehicle miles traveled" tax, could close that gap.

A use tax doesn't necessarily sound bad if it's not "in addition to" existing taxes per gallon purchased. The government is pushing the car industry to CAFE standards for higher fleet mileage knowing full well that it would reduce government revenues. Seems like folks that drive a lot and move to more efficient vehicles for the mileage would end up getting screwed anyway.

Fuck this.

ASUG8 wrote:A use tax doesn't necessarily sound bad if it's not "in addition to" existing taxes per gallon purchased. The government is pushing the car industry to CAFE standards for higher fleet mileage knowing full well that it would reduce government revenues. Seems like folks that drive a lot and move to more efficient vehicles for the mileage would end up getting screwed anyway.

Sounds bad either way IMO.

grizzaholic wrote:**** this.

Exactly, Grizza. It's a horrible idea that should be drowned at birth. As the article indicates, people in rural states like Montana who normally drive long distances would be soaked. I'm surprised that Kent Conrad of spacious ND would endorse this boondoggle. At a penny a mile, my wife and I would probably have to pay $400 a year between us, as we commute to our Sussex house once or twice a week each.

My bet is that this will never fly politically.

Ivytalk wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:**** this.

Exactly, Grizza. It's a horrible idea that should be drowned at birth. As the article indicates, people in rural states like Montana who normally drive long distances would be soaked. I'm surprised that Kent Conrad of spacious ND would endorse this boondoggle. At a penny a mile, my wife and I would probably have to pay $400 a year between us, as we commute to our Sussex house once or twice a week each.

My bet is that this will never fly politically.

I knew I made a very compelling and well stated argument.

The only way I can see this actually working/passing would be in states with emmision control shit where the govt. can check your car each year.

Seeing how they want to increase revenue, I can't see this as being anything other than an "in addition to" tax, so I would really doubt that they would remove the gas tax completely, or even a lot. For something like this to work, the economy needs to get a lot better than it is. We're much better off than in the dark days of when the recession fully hit in the Fall of '08, but we're far from being a healthy, vibrant economy. People are still struggling to find jobs and a measure like this would tend to shorten the radius of travel for what people could do in terms of travel for a job, hurting those prospects even further. Really makes a lot of other things expensive as well - I just got bids from various rigging contractors for a job I'm running and I took bids from people very local (less than 20 minutes) to people 2-3 hours away by turnpike. Between the turnpike tolls and an additional per mile tax, it would certainly be harder for the more distant contractor to win that job.

MISERABLE TAXING BASTARDS!

This is a really stupid proposal. Penalizing people for seeking out vehicles that can meet their current needs while using less fuel: brilliant.

Yet another proposal that makes the tax code more confusing. It seems like the government's wet dream is to come up with more and more confusing taxes.

Wow - this is a giant middle finger to rural America... who already pay plenty through the current tax system. The law of unintended consequences says - enjoy the much higher food prices as a result of such short-sightedness.

Paying for infrastructure is a core government service, and I know of virtually no one, no matter how libertarian who disagrees... meaning, IMO, such a thing should be covered by income taxes.

Use taxes don't work on this kind of shared asset. IMO use taxes rarely work, but in this case especially... What this really seems like is a trial balloon, sure to be rejected, but that opens the way for more damn toll roads...

TTBF makes an outstanding point here. Cali is a perfect example. We have a so-called "use tax" on the books. It's essentially supposed to enforce the CA sales tax on purchases made in other states (usually over the Internet). It shows up on the 540 2EZ tax form and probably the two higher-level ones (540 and 540 A). The problem is that nobody keeps good records of that, so nobody pays up. And there's no real way to enforce it. There's no real way to enforce this road-use tax, either.

Nice one, TTBF.

SuperHornet wrote:TTBF makes an outstanding point here. Cali is a perfect example. We have a so-called "use tax" on the books. It's essentially supposed to enforce the CA sales tax on purchases made in other states (usually over the Internet). It shows up on the 540 2EZ tax form and probably the two higher-level ones (540 and 540 A). The problem is that nobody keeps good records of that, so nobody pays up. And there's no real way to enforce it. There's no real way to enforce this road-use tax, either.

Nice one, TTBF.

The way to enforce it would be living in a state that requires yearly emission checks. When you go in with your vehicle to get your sticker/stamp/whatever you get the GUY checks your mileage with the previous years and you get to pay for the check AND for your mileage usage.

grizzaholic wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:TTBF makes an outstanding point here. Cali is a perfect example. We have a so-called "use tax" on the books. It's essentially supposed to enforce the CA sales tax on purchases made in other states (usually over the Internet). It shows up on the 540 2EZ tax form and probably the two higher-level ones (540 and 540 A). The problem is that nobody keeps good records of that, so nobody pays up. And there's no real way to enforce it. There's no real way to enforce this road-use tax, either.

Nice one, TTBF.

The way to enforce it would be living in a state that requires yearly emission checks. When you go in with your vehicle to get your sticker/stamp/whatever you get the GUY checks your mileage with the previous years and you get to pay for the check AND for your mileage usage.

Which would result in more people getting out of the smog check business. Many car shop people in Cali already view the process as too political, and this would throw even more over the edge. And if you think this state can afford to run the shops itself (for example, at the local DMV), you're crazy.

grizzaholic wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:TTBF makes an outstanding point here. Cali is a perfect example. We have a so-called "use tax" on the books. It's essentially supposed to enforce the CA sales tax on purchases made in other states (usually over the Internet). It shows up on the 540 2EZ tax form and probably the two higher-level ones (540 and 540 A). The problem is that nobody keeps good records of that, so nobody pays up. And there's no real way to enforce it. There's no real way to enforce this road-use tax, either.

Nice one, TTBF.

The way to enforce it would be living in a state that requires yearly emission checks. When you go in with your vehicle to get your sticker/stamp/whatever you get the GUY checks your mileage with the previous years and you get to pay for the check AND for your mileage usage.

or a gps monitor on the vehicle... as has been floated in MN... (granted, it went over like a lead balloon...)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
The way to enforce it would be living in a state that requires yearly emission checks. When you go in with your vehicle to get your sticker/stamp/whatever you get the GUY checks your mileage with the previous years and you get to pay for the check AND for your mileage usage.

or a gps monitor on the vehicle... as has been floated in MN... (granted, it went over like a lead balloon...)

Two likely reasons it crashed (TTBF likely has more) are the Big Brother idea and the fact that it would take more bureaucracy to actually run the program, which MN likely can't afford. Why establish a program that only exists to pay for itself, and does nothing in the long run to help anything else?

SuperHornet wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
or a gps monitor on the vehicle... as has been floated in MN... (granted, it went over like a lead balloon...)

Two likely reasons it crashed (TTBF likely has more) are the Big Brother idea and the fact that it would take more bureaucracy to actually run the program, which MN likely can't afford. Why establish a program that only exists to pay for itself, and does nothing in the long run to help anything else?

Actually, it would have produced HUGE revenue, despite increased costs for implementation...

It went nowhere because a HUGE percentage of Minnesotans travel significant distances either in their commute, or own lake property in the northwoods... most of those people live in the Twin Cities suburbs - suburbs filled with purple districts, where being the assclown who supported this idea would a sure-fire ticket to a defeat next election.

Ivytalk wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:**** this.

Exactly, Grizza. It's a horrible idea that should be drowned at birth. As the article indicates, people in rural states like Montana who normally drive long distances would be soaked. I'm surprised that Kent Conrad of spacious ND would endorse this boondoggle. At a penny a mile, my wife and I would probably have to pay $400 a year between us, as we commute to our Sussex house once or twice a week each.

My bet is that this will never fly politically.

Might have to lay off the maid.

houndawg wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Exactly, Grizza. It's a horrible idea that should be drowned at birth. As the article indicates, people in rural states like Montana who normally drive long distances would be soaked. I'm surprised that Kent Conrad of spacious ND would endorse this boondoggle. At a penny a mile, my wife and I would probably have to pay $400 a year between us, as we commute to our Sussex house once or twice a week each.

My bet is that this will never fly politically.

Might have to lay off the maid.

You're back? Haven't I bitch-slapped you enough?