champu 1 #26 May 5, 2011 Quote>By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. You could require all cars to electronically report the delta odometer reading since the last time you put gas in it, and scales at all gas pumps to weigh the vehicle. Using these and the amount of gas sold the pump could calculate an "atmospheric and road wear tax" and apply it to the purchase price. ...of course you'd need a government agency with employees to be sure all scales and odometers were calibrated and operating accurately on a regular basis as well as bean counters to adjust all the rates based on region, climate, etc. ...and offices to collect the taxes and determine appropriate distributions to locals based on road miles and vehicle counts. ...and programs to supply upgrades to cars owned by the underprivledged, and scale installation subsidies for gas stations in low-income areas. Hell, if we're lucky, we might even break even. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #27 May 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote then they're not disincentivizing gas hogs sigh - social engineering via the tax code - lovely Do you have a better solution? The problem is that you get idiocy like subsidizing high mileage/electric vehicles that then have the unintended (but full predictable) consequences of reducing gas tax revenue. So then you change the formula for that, causing other unintended (maybe or maybe not predictable) consequences. It just becomes a market-distorting quagmire."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #28 May 5, 2011 >of course you'd need a government agency . . . OK. Then just go by weight. It's already on registrations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 May 5, 2011 Quote>of course you'd need a government agency . . . OK. Then just go by weight. It's already on registrations. well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars let alone the punishing people that buy heavier built cars to protect THE CHILDREN and, those registrations are all printed in english only - you can really see how that would bias against legal immigrants as well as our valued immigrants of alternative status why do you hate poor, minorities, children, and non-english-speaking-economic-contributors? Edit: what about all those patriotic union members that build those heavier vehicles too? what about them? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #30 May 5, 2011 Quote Quote It seems like a reasonable reaction to changing times. People are moving towards more efficient vehicles therefore the taxes collected on a per gallon basis will end up underfunding our transportation infrastructure. It's a draft proposal so I'm pretty sure that they'd be willing to entertain other solutions if anyone has one. Ever notice how certain people in certain groups are good with using things we are all paying for to live in a civilized country and yet bitch incessantly when they actually have to pay for that use?? The get something for nothing crowd....why does it always seem to come from those who are supposed to be all about "fiscal responsibility" In discussions I've read on this, I'm seeing more privacy concerns and "why create a new tax" concerns. Most responses I've seen lean towards "just bump the gas tax instead". but you can pick the posts you respond to for the maximum troll value. I get that. Don't have a problem with it either. Tends to be entertaining.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #31 May 5, 2011 >well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars OK. Make it free and tax someone else to support the highways. I guess in the end that's the American way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #32 May 5, 2011 Quote>well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars OK. Make it free and tax someone else to support the highways. I guess in the end that's the American way. but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!!-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #33 May 5, 2011 >but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads >without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! Sure. The more the better. That way there won't be any burdensome issues to think about or administer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 May 5, 2011 Quote>well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars OK. Make it free and tax someone else to support the highways. I guess in the end that's the American way. now you're talking - everything is FREE - why can't someone else pay for it? GO AMERICA ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #35 May 5, 2011 Quote>but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads >without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! Sure. The more the better. That way there won't be any burdensome issues to think about or administer. Ooohh!!! Can we make it zero tolerance? That will drastically cut down on having to think...Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #36 May 5, 2011 Quote Ridiculous and unnecessary - why use technology to 'try' solve problem ... just increase the tax on fuel - it's a no brainer ... the mechanism is already in place for collecting the tax and not need to develop/install anything new to ALL vehicles.. Which brainless numpty thought that one up? Probably the guy who wants to create and direct a new bureaucracy. Something like the...... "Department of Mileage Fees that will pay for my pointless job " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #37 May 5, 2011 Quote>By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. Except road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. More reasonable would be miles * weight^4 / axles^3. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #38 May 5, 2011 QuoteQuote>By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. Except road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. More reasonable would be miles * weight^4 / axles^3. Weight is a variable, better set up an integral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #39 May 5, 2011 >More reasonable would be miles * weight^4 / axles^3. That sentence contains math, and per the common wisdom here, is therefore unacceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #40 May 5, 2011 QuoteQuote>well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars OK. Make it free and tax someone else to support the highways. I guess in the end that's the American way. but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! Good point! Maybe we could tax people based on a percentage of what they earn. We could call this new tax an "income tax"."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #41 May 5, 2011 Quote Quote >By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. Except road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. More reasonable would be miles * weight^4 / axles^3. Damn. You're really going to stick it to me when I go rollerblading; I have 8 axles."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #42 May 5, 2011 >You're really going to stick it to me when I go rollerblading; I have 8 axles. _Divided_ by axles cubed! You'd pay a factor of 32 less compared to a car assuming equivalent weight, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #43 May 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote >By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. Except road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. More reasonable would be miles * weight^4 / axles^3. Damn. You're really going to stick it to me when I go rollerblading; I have 8 axles. Nah that's an inverse cubic so you're fine. Joggers are really screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #44 May 5, 2011 Quote >You're really going to stick it to me when I go rollerblading; I have 8 axles. _Divided_ by axles cubed! You'd pay a factor of 32 less compared to a car assuming equivalent weight, Doh! I didn't notice that was the divisor."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #45 May 5, 2011 Quote The problem is that you get idiocy like subsidizing high mileage/electric vehicles that then have the unintended (but full predictable) consequences of reducing gas tax revenue. So then you change the formula for that, causing other unintended (maybe or maybe not predictable) consequences. It just becomes a market-distorting quagmire. Well we subsidized heavy gas guzzling vehicles through the tax code and look where that got us (section 179 in the tax code and revived in a different form with the Obama/Republican "don't tax the rich" compromise of 2010). Using tax expenditures to get us to cut down on oil demand (for which we spend about $100B/yr in military costs to secure) is a step in the right direction IMO. Tax expenditures (aka "loopholes") are there to social engineer. Make that engineering work FOR us instead of against us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #46 May 5, 2011 This thread is both informative and funny. Funny: Some bozo comes up with one more idea let the goobermint pick our wallets. Informative: U.S. citizens are so well trained that even a suggestion of a new tax makes them come up with other , new ways to let help the goobermint pick our wallets. "Let's not do it that way! Let's do it this way!" Ooooo...that's funny too!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #47 May 5, 2011 Well, notice that my "new" tax was an existing tax. I detest *any* new taxes because: - Every tax has a cost of implementation. i.e. less than 100% of the tax goes into the coffers, because there is a cost of the bookkeeping/collection/etc. - In contrast, if you just increase an existing tax, 100% of the increase goes into the coffers, because an increased rate does not change what it costs to implement it."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #48 May 5, 2011 >Informative: >U.S. citizens are so well trained that even a suggestion of a new tax > makes them come up with other , new ways to let help the goobermint >pick our wallets. Informative #2 - There are people who don't even realize that they're paying taxes to support something already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 May 5, 2011 QuoteQuote>By charging per vehicle mile it's more "fair" from the point of view that >you're charging the person for road use and not fuel consumption. Probably the fairest fee would be miles driven times weight of vehicle. You could require all cars to electronically report the delta odometer reading since the last time you put gas in it, and scales at all gas pumps to weigh the vehicle. Using these and the amount of gas sold the pump could calculate an "atmospheric and road wear tax" and apply it to the purchase price. ...of course you'd need a government agency with employees to be sure all scales and odometers were calibrated and operating accurately on a regular basis as well as bean counters to adjust all the rates based on region, climate, etc. ...and offices to collect the taxes and determine appropriate distributions to locals based on road miles and vehicle counts. ...and programs to supply upgrades to cars owned by the underprivledged, and scale installation subsidies for gas stations in low-income areas. Hell, if we're lucky, we might even break even. yes, even disregarding the privacy concerns of mileage trackers in cars, the costs of new equipment and a method for collection (CA, like many, if not most states, doesn't inspect the cars annually or ever), I see a large portion of the money going up in smoke in the process. Gas tax exists, has a secondary goal of encouraging fuel economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #50 May 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>well that's just hating on the poor and minorities who can't afford lighter weight cars OK. Make it free and tax someone else to support the highways. I guess in the end that's the American way. but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! Good point! Maybe we could tax people based on a percentage of what they earn. We could call this new tax an "income tax". oohh... sounds like a slippery slope to me. next thing you know the gubbmint is going to want money for every gallon of gas we buy.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
