Driver's tax soon to be implemented?

[aziankingz]

This plus gas prices will definitely put a dent in a lot of our wallets - they are just researching and looking into this idea so I hope it does not get passed.. probably not until Obama is re-elected at least.

Driving tax gains favor as gas tax funds fall short - May. 18, 2011

[ronmcdon]

that's bullshit, as the article mentioned, there are already Federal (and State) taxes for gas, so they're already doing that.
Again, this is just our government's inability to balance their budget effectively & make proper adjustments for poor economic times.

But, if they had to this, simply upping the gas taxes would be the most effective.
All this non-sense about installing gov't monitored GPS devices is just another unnecessary expense & inconvenience that tax-payers will ultimately get shafted with.

I like the Republican's idea though.
Just spend less on roads, or at least find a more cost-effective way to maintain it.
At the very least, the reduction in road work won't clog up as much traffic.

[drftwerks]

good.

i hope it goes way up.

i want good public transportation, good roads, high speed trains from nor cal to so cal.

too poor to play ball?? gewt the fuck off the road.

[turbobrick]

If they go off your odometer to figure out how much you owe, I could see a lot of odometer fraud in the future. At least on older cars where it would be easy to do. And if they use gps units, who's going to pay for the millions of gps units needed?

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by aziankingz

This plus gas prices will definitely put a dent in a lot of our wallets - they are just researching and looking into this idea so I hope it does not get passed.. probably not until Obama is re-elected at least.

Driving tax gains favor as gas tax funds fall short - May. 18, 2011

This is fear mongering on your part with your title. There is no way this would happen without a protracted legal battle over it with the ACLU heavily involved.

Nowhere in the article did it say it was happening either. It did state that some whack lawmakers had considered it but at the same time many were opposed including the President.

Please do not post misleading titles that are completely unfounded without factual truth.

[BustedS13]

hey, canadians, are your roads alright? kind of getting sick of my country.

[aziankingz]

Who knows what the government is capable of? We are in the biggest budget deficit ever and the government is desperate for money. I also said in my post that they are still researching and looking into the idea.

[axiomatik]

Something will have to be done if electric cars ever become a significant portion of the cars on the road, because under the current taxation scheme, they would contribute nothing to the maintenance of the roads. But we are a long ways from needing to change the tax system. Right now, pretty much all cars on the road run on gas or diesel, so every one already pays a usage tax.

What the government needs to do is increase the federal gas tax. It is at 18.4 cents/gal, and has been since 1993. Adjusting for inflation, that means the federal government is collecting only 2/3 the tax revenue per gallon than when the rate was set in 1993. Meanwhile, the number of roads and drivers has increased.

However, what really damages the highways are semi trucks. Their huge weight does a disproportionate amount of damage to the highway system relative to passenger cars. I think the diesel taxes should be raised first. Sure, we'd all pay for it in the end as shipping companies raised their rates to cover the increased cost, but it would give shipping companies a greater incentive to improve efficiency.

[VROOOM]

im not worried. ive had my Evo for 2 years and it only has 13,400 miles.

[w0nderbr3ad]

Originally Posted by drftwerks

good.

i hope it goes way up.

i want good public transportation, good roads, high speed trains from nor cal to so cal.

too poor to play ball?? gewt the fuck off the road.

I actually agree with this. If there was good public transport, I wouldn't drive at all. When I was living in Nor Cal, I never drove because I just took muni, bart, or walked. Its healthy for one thing (lost 15lbs and got stronger legs) and it was cheap to ride.

[upsdude]

Originally Posted by drftwerks

good.

i hope it goes way up.

i want good public transportation, good roads, high speed trains from nor cal to so cal.

too poor to play ball?? gewt the fuck off the road.

as it is the revenue from the gas tax money gets raided to cover the general fund-else we'd have much better roads than what we have now. and judging by the incompetence from both parties of california's legislature nothing will be solved in the immediate future. for example: we have metro lines in the L.A. area no one takes you directly to the airport. maybe a mile or 2 short of it, so you still have to get a cab or something. talk about stupid.

personally i don't like the idea of a driving tax-they can't handle the money they get from us from all the other taxes, this will just be another revenue stream for some other b.s. and i don't like the idea of the govt tracking where i drive.

[Sergio180sx]

My odometer stopped working hehe....I plea the fifth!

[upsdude]

i'm sure the govt will require some kind of mileage tracking device in your car, and make it so you cant register it or something unless you have one. or new cars will have the tech to send that info straight to some database. one of the very few things the government can do right is take your money

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by drift freaq

This is fear mongering on your part with your title. There is no way this would happen without a protracted legal battle over it with the ACLU heavily involved.

Nowhere in the article did it say it was happening either. It did state that some whack lawmakers had considered it but at the same time many were opposed including the President.

Please do not post misleading titles that are completely unfounded without factual truth.

Yeah, moved to Loud Noises.

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by w0nderbr3ad

I actually agree with this. If there was good public transport, I wouldn't drive at all. When I was living in Nor Cal, I never drove because I just took muni, bart, or walked. Its healthy for one thing (lost 15lbs and got stronger legs) and it was cheap to ride.

I did that too for about four years & it sucked (in the east bay & san francisco).
Took me at least an hour to get anywhere.
Nonetheless it's a lot worse in LA, and it's foolishly presumptuous to think we can get by just as well.
Yeah, gov't planning could have been a lot better, but in the end it's the ppl that suffer.

[ayuaddict]

Let's take Japan for example, it is seriously like ten times more expensive to drive out there. Registration, tolls and gasoline are all considerably more expensive.

Roads are beautiful.

Awesome public transportation.

Where are all the fat people?

I'll vote yes.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by axiomatik

However, what really damages the highways are semi trucks. Their huge weight does a disproportionate amount of damage to the highway system relative to passenger cars. I think the diesel taxes should be raised first. Sure, we'd all pay for it in the end as shipping companies raised their rates to cover the increased cost, but it would give shipping companies a greater incentive to improve efficiency.

If America would build quality roads instead of fast roads the road bed would be twice as deep and need a quarter of the maintenance. The impact of the weight would be much less when you have more than 4 inches of asphalt on 8 inches of cement.




As for the taxation issue. I think it should be %100 done in paying to register your vehicle. After that the government is just butting into your personal life. Why should they get an extra tax on top of the sales tax?

[HalveBlue]

I was always under the impression that most road damage is caused by the perpetual heating-and-cooling cycle that paved surfaces go through, not the weight or amount of cars (sans heavy, tracked vehicles, like a tank. Those'll tear up roads quickly).

That having been said, cutting back on road maintenance is one of the dumbest things we could do. America is a huge country and without proper infrastructure in place our economy would go straight down the shitter.

Roads are expensive, no doubt. A fact even the Romans appreciated.

But what's the alternative? Unless you're cool with bridges randomly collapsing (like what happened in Wisconsin a few years back) or needing a 4x4 just to be able to buy groceries I would say that we're just gonna have to bite the bullet and pay whatever it costs.

Our road infrastructure in the US enjoys heavy government subsidies. The gasoline taxes don't come close to covering most road construction and maintenance costs.

There's definitely room for improvement, including reevaluating the way we finance our roads. However, there are other possible solutions as well, like changing development patterns and improving public transit options.

[TheWolf]

There's this table.. and obama and every head of the government is around it.. and the last $100 sit in the middle.. and they're all scheming on how they're going to get it..


when the gravy train ends.. all these departments are going to be tossing ideas out there on how to get their funding. It's not going to be in the form of a big VAT tax to pay for it all. It's going to be in the nickel and dimeing of people. An extra $5 on every fillup. A $25 pack of cigarettes. A tag will be $400. Property Tax will keep going up.. all so people can pay for this giant overhead.

The BART is a money looser and always has been. It's supported by property taxes, not by the minuscule "fee" people pay to ride it.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

The BART is a money looser and always has been. It's supported by property taxes, not by the minuscule "fee" people pay to ride it.

All transportation systems in the US are subsidized.

[kingkilburn]

Have you ever seen the waves in asphalt on the interstate out in the desert? Or intersections frequented by big rigs?

Tractor trailer rigs really screw up roads. They sink in asphalt and tear up chunks of cement as well as asphalt.

[imotion s14]

we're always a tax increase away from government mandated Utopia.

[5pecialist]

Thanks Obama!

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by ayuaddict

Let's take Japan for example, it is seriously like ten times more expensive to drive out there. Registration, tolls and gasoline are all considerably more expensive.

Roads are beautiful.

Awesome public transportation.

Where are all the fat people?

I'll vote yes.

Oh no doubt what's in Japan is preferable to CA.
If I could snap my fingers and make things that way, I would.
I would be happy to get rid of my car if it meant not getting stuck in hours of traffic anymore.

I just don't see how that alternative could be implemented anytime soon, within practical means.
There is progress, it's just coming at a snails pace.

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by ayuaddict

Let's take Japan for example, it is seriously like ten times more expensive to drive out there. Registration, tolls and gasoline are all considerably more expensive.

Roads are beautiful.

Awesome public transportation.

Where are all the fat people?

I'll vote yes.

Ya but the United States is whole hell of a lot larger than Japan with a lot more road infrastructure. Japan does not have the freeway system that exists in the U.S.

Oh and like our lawmakers would not misappropriate funds from the tax collected to use on other things. LOL

Seriously our state let alone the federal government cannot even balance a budget. How do you expect them to collect even more money for roads and actually use it as its intended.

The day that happens is the day Nissan makes another 240sx.

Oh and this is coming from a person who is actually very optimistic on things.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by axiomatik

Something will have to be done if electric cars ever become a significant portion of the cars on the road, because under the current taxation scheme, they would contribute nothing to the maintenance of the roads. But we are a long ways from needing to change the tax system. Right now, pretty much all cars on the road run on gas or diesel, so every one already pays a usage tax.

What the government needs to do is increase the federal gas tax. It is at 18.4 cents/gal, and has been since 1993. Adjusting for inflation, that means the federal government is collecting only 2/3 the tax revenue per gallon than when the rate was set in 1993. Meanwhile, the number of roads and drivers has increased.

However, what really damages the highways are semi trucks. Their huge weight does a disproportionate amount of damage to the highway system relative to passenger cars. I think the diesel taxes should be raised first. Sure, we'd all pay for it in the end as shipping companies raised their rates to cover the increased cost, but it would give shipping companies a greater incentive to improve efficiency.

The Federal Gasoline tax is 18.4¢/gal and Diesel fuel is 24.4¢/gal. So, it is already "raised." Most states have higher taxes on Diesel fuel compared to Gasoline. Some even tax commercial drivers for gas used in the state even if they didn't buy it in the state.

Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by upsdude

as it is the revenue from the gas tax money gets raided to cover the general fund-else we'd have much better roads than what we have now. and judging by the incompetence from both parties of california's legislature nothing will be solved in the immediate future. for example: we have metro lines in the L.A. area no one takes you directly to the airport. maybe a mile or 2 short of it, so you still have to get a cab or something. talk about stupid.

personally i don't like the idea of a driving tax-they can't handle the money they get from us from all the other taxes, this will just be another revenue stream for some other b.s. and i don't like the idea of the govt tracking where i drive.

Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs. However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs.

Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?

MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

Online NewsHour: Conversation | Peters Discusses Infrastructure | August 15, 2007 | PBS

Got to love Congress. Robing Peter to pay for Paul's Museum.

[axiomatik]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

As for the taxation issue. I think it should be %100 done in paying to register your vehicle. After that the government is just butting into your personal life. Why should they get an extra tax on top of the sales tax?

Registration is a State issue, not Federal. Unless you want a Federal registration, the gas tax is the way Federal highway maintenance is financed.

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

I was always under the impression that most road damage is caused by the perpetual heating-and-cooling cycle that paved surfaces go through, not the weight or amount of cars (sans heavy, tracked vehicles, like a tank. Those'll tear up roads quickly).

You should see the roads in the office park I work in. Swift Trucking built a transfer facility here, and so there are Swift trucks constantly coming and going. You can tell see which roads and intersections they use the most, the curbs are crumbling, the pavement is rippling, etc. In the US, a semi can weigh as much as 80,000 pounds, so it is stressing the roads a lot more than a 4000 pound car. Of course, weather plays a role as well, but there is not much we can do about that. Weather will buckle roads whether or not they are ever driven on. But heavy trucks driving over it can and will accelerate that wear.

Originally Posted by TheWolf

The BART is a money looser and always has been. It's supported by property taxes, not by the minuscule "fee" people pay to ride it.

The Federal Highway System is a money loser too, that doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

Originally Posted by ayuaddict

Let's take Japan for example, it is seriously like ten times more expensive to drive out there. Registration, tolls and gasoline are all considerably more expensive.

Roads are beautiful.

Awesome public transportation.

Where are all the fat people?

I'll vote yes.

Japan is only the size of California, with 150 million people. It is a lot easier to finance road construction and maintenance and public transit construction when you have so many fewer miles to build. The cost/person is greatly reduced.

Originally Posted by S14DB

The Federal Gasoline tax is 18.4¢/gal and Diesel fuel is 24.4¢/gal. So, it is already "raised." Most states have higher taxes on Diesel fuel compared to Gasoline. Some even tax commercial drivers for gas used in the state even if they didn't buy it in the state.

Yes, diesel tax is higher than gasoline, but it is still at the same level as 1993. Highway funding has been declining every year for 18 years due to inflation. The tax should be indexed to inflation and adjusted every few years, not every few decades. The infrastructure maintenance in this country is abysmal.

Originally Posted by S14DB

Got to love Congress. Robing Peter to pay for Paul's Museum.

Those 2 quotes are rather conflicting. One states that 40% of the transportation bill is earmarks, the other says that it is less than 10%, that's a big difference. But the issue of earmarking is separate. On one hand, seeing senators trying to secure money for a 'bridge-to-nowhere' seems outrageous, but on the other hand, you want your own senators and representatives working to improve the infrastructure in your own state. How to balance that issue is the key, but really a different topic of discussion.

Another thing to note, bike paths and trails are transportation infrastructure. They may not carry cars, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a useful purpose for the community while still falling under the 'transportation' umbrella. Museums and lighthouses are a bit of a stretch, and ideally, you would see congress reject those types of amendments, but it isn't a perfect system. All told, though, I would bet these museum and lighthouse projects, bike paths and trails, etc, are a tiny, tiny portion of the transportation budget.

[kingkilburn]

Most taxation of this kind is handled by local government anyway. Counties collect the taxes and hand them over to the feds.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by axiomatik

Those 2 quotes are rather conflicting. One states that 40% of the transportation bill is earmarks, the other says that it is less than 10%, that's a big difference. But the issue of earmarking is separate. On one hand, seeing senators trying to secure money for a 'bridge-to-nowhere' seems outrageous, but on the other hand, you want your own senators and representatives working to improve the infrastructure in your own state. How to balance that issue is the key, but really a different topic of discussion.

40% of the Total. That 10% was just One spending bill as an example.

[ayuaddict]

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

Oh no doubt what's in Japan is preferable to CA.
If I could snap my fingers and make things that way, I would.
I would be happy to get rid of my car if it meant not getting stuck in hours of traffic anymore.

I just don't see how that alternative could be implemented anytime soon, within practical means.
There is progress, it's just coming at a snails pace.

Oh I'm not hating or even comparing the two, and i do realize that it won't be possible any time soon. When you treat driving as a luxury/privilege and actually enforce that belief, that is when it actually starts becoming reality, or so i think.

Originally Posted by drift freaq

Ya but the United States is whole hell of a lot larger than Japan with a lot more road infrastructure. Japan does not have the freeway system that exists in the U.S.

Oh and like our lawmakers would not misappropriate funds from the tax collected to use on other things. LOL

Seriously our state let alone the federal government cannot even balance a budget. How do you expect them to collect even more money for roads and actually use it as its intended.

The day that happens is the day Nissan makes another 240sx.

Oh and this is coming from a person who is actually very optimistic on things.

That is very true, i actually think adding tolls to every freeway would be a start and make a huge difference, if of course the dudes in charge of the money actually kept the money in transportation.

Originally Posted by axiomatik

Japan is only the size of California, with 150 million people. It is a lot easier to finance road construction and maintenance and public transit construction when you have so many fewer miles to build. The cost/person is greatly reduced.

I feel like a broken record but i do think that taxing the people who actually use the freeway system significantly more than the general population is a fair and efficient way to at least start to make a difference. I do understand i am comparing apples to oranges.