Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

American drivers may be taxed by the mile? Options · View
Jack_42
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:43:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Maybe I'm missing something but going by the prices quoted for driving on US roads compared to UK road tax etc it seems that US drivers have it easy. Though I'm quite happy to be corrected.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:18:03 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "

Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:25:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397


Lady X,,,, the history of how taxation per gallon is always progressive.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:35:02 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
mercianknight wrote:
Governments, at both local & national levels, will always find a way to pick your pocket of any loose change.

The idea of taxing fuel to fund the maintenance of highways is entirely sensible and the spin doctors will always present a credible case when in fact the truth is more insidious. Take the time to compare the revenues generated from the varied taxes applied to using your private motor vehicle and then compare it to the budget for maintaining said highways. If it is anything like I saw in the UK or here on my idyllic isles, then you will see that much of the monies raised are diverted for other uses - and I still have to dodge pot-holes!

cussing

Anyway, I'm sure the monies that 'should' be used to maintain our roads are being used frugally and ethically by our trusted elected officials, and that we will inevitably allow them to apply more stealth taxes on our quality of life. binky


Obama took office a gallon of unleaded gasoline was 1.86 USD,..... today it is 3.25 USD,,, there is your stealth tax. The USA has more then enough oil on private and public lands but on public lands we lack political leadership to grow our economy, keeping billions of petro dollars in the US economy. No Socialist rather opt for buying Oil from Nation States that hate the USA.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:27:28 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Buc wrote:
What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "

Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses.


But they're clearly low compared to other countries when it comes to fuel taxes. I suppose this loops directly into the "government is too big and needs to cut tons of stuff" discussion for many (perhaps for you as well), but the fact remains, we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:55:22 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage. " LadyX

Yes we can, think of it like this if you will. Million of more cars on the road then in 1993....

1993 total registered vehicles in the USA = 190 million
2012 total registered vehicles in the USA = 246 Million

Taking the number of registered vehicles x the gallons they use = higher net revenues to the Federal Government

LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:57:49 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
At 1993 rates?

A dollar is worth a hell of a lot less now than in 1993. Even if you only factor in the inflation adjustment, that would at least theoretically keep up with the usage.
Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:08:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Buc wrote:
we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage. " LadyX

Yes we can, think of it like this if you will. Million of more cars on the road then in 1993....

1993 total registered vehicles in the USA = 190 million
2012 total registered vehicles in the USA = 246 Million

Taking the number of registered vehicles x the gallons they use = higher net revenues to the Federal Government



You are forgetting the other side of the equation. By your own numbers, there are 56 million more vehicles on the road now. That's roughly 25% more than in 1993. Which means that roads are going to deteriorate 25% faster. So, not only do you need more repairs, but, you also have to factor in the cost of labour and materials for those repairs has gone up drastically in the last 20 years as well.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:20:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Actually, according to the article, the taxes are a constant number per gallon, not a percentage of fuel cost.


I stand corrected. Embarassed

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:17:26 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Rembacher wrote:


You are forgetting the other side of the equation. By your own numbers, there are 56 million more vehicles on the road now. That's roughly 25% more than in 1993. Which means that roads are going to deteriorate 25% faster. So, not only do you need more repairs, but, you also have to factor in the cost of labour and materials for those repairs has gone up drastically in the last 20 years as well.


I don't think there is a direct correlation between number of cars on the road and deterioration of the roads, here is why. Cars are lighter,,, road are made of better materials.

elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:27:34 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Buc wrote:


I don't think there is a direct correlation between number of cars on the road and deterioration of the roads, here is why. Cars are lighter,,, road are made of better materials.



No direct correlation? So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? That cars have nothing at all to do with it? Because if there is no direct correlation then that means that you could drive a trillion cars over one piece of road and if it was in vacum it would be as good as new! Can you not see the flaw in your argument here?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:52:39 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
I want to start taxing all elected and appointed politicians by their inefficiency. Shit, they'd all be bankrupt in weeks!

elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:18:44 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Buz wrote:
I want to start taxing all elected and appointed politicians by their inefficiency. Shit, they'd all be bankrupt in weeks!


Isn't that why people want to get elected? So they can be inefficiant and slackers and still get payed?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:03:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
No direct correlation? A, he said a 25 % increase in vehicle travel related to a 25% increase in deterioration of roads, I gave but two mitigating factors.

So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? Only, no of course not, back off the ledge of hyperbolic speech .

That cars have nothing at all to do with it?, They are the primary factor .

ByronLord
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:14:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buc wrote:
What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "

Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses.


The US government could cut back on the $100 billion it gives in subsidies to the oil companies. Problem solved.

The only reason they get those subsidies are the huge bribes paid by the oil cos to politicians campaign funds and by hiring the wives of congressmen (and SCOTUS judge Thomas) as million dollar a year lobbyists.

The blatant corruption of Thomas is particularly disgusting. The man should be in jail as the money paid to his wife goes straight into his pocket and he is hearing cases brought by the people who hire her and there really isn't any other reason to hire Ginny Thomas.

Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:51:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Buc wrote:
No direct correlation? A, he said a 25 % increase in vehicle travel related to a 25% increase in deterioration of roads, I gave but two mitigating factors.

So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? Only, no of course not, back off the ledge of hyperbolic speech .

That cars have nothing at all to do with it?, They are the primary factor .



Fair enough. Let's say roads don't deteriorate 25% faster than they did befoore. You still admit that vehicles are the main cause of deterioration. So more cars will mean more deterioration.

What about the other factor I mentioned? Inflation. Asphalt is far more expensive tthan it was in 1993. And people are far more expensive too. There is no way that paving a mile of road today costs anything close to what it did back then.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:32:32 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
You still admit that vehicles are the main cause of deterioration. So more cars will mean more deterioration.

What about the other factor I mentioned? Inflation. Asphalt is far more expensive tthan it was in 1993. And people are far more expensive too. There is no way that paving a mile of road today costs anything close to what it did back then. "

The cost is spread over more motorist, most states collect a fuel tax as well for road repair,,,,,, and then are taxes for titles and taxes for tire disposal and taxes for too expensive a car and taxes on the car it self in sales tax and don't for get licensing fees.


US GDP tumbled in to negative range in 4th qrt, ObamaNomics FORWARD.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:49:12 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap, not a per-mile tax. I hope they don't go that route, but we've got a shortfall either way you slice it. We haven't been keeping up with road and bridge maintenance the way we should, for decades. At least a modest hike in the fuel taxes seems more than appropriate.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:35:38 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Or we could just quit trying to overthrow governments and put military bases in every country in the world. Spend most of our money within the borders of the fifty united states on infrastructure for a change?

http://www.businessinsider.com/money-spent-in-afghanistan-could-buy-at-home-2011-8

This is beyond sad. It's criminal.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:40:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Or we could just quit trying to overthrow governments and put military bases in every country in the world. Spend most of our money within the borders of the fifty united states on infrastructure for a change?

http://www.businessinsider.com/money-spent-in-afghanistan-could-buy-at-home-2011-8

This is beyond sad. It's criminal.


Hey, You! Get the fuck outa here with all that common sense horseshit! If we wanted all that money spent at home, we would have some kind of cabinet-level position only in charge of crap within our borders. Sort of a Department of... The Interior... kinda thing...

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:52:06 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap" the failure of GM called the "volt" is getting $7 K in US tax dollars per unit. This after a loss of 49 Billion in bailing out GM, that number will grow in losses.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:54:14 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,397
US has all the oil it needs, just let the people that bring it to market do it, the flood of cash to the US economy and by taxation to the Federal Govt. That money does not flow out of the US and is cycled within the US.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:57:30 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Buc wrote:
Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap" the failure of GM called the "volt" is getting $7 K in US tax dollars per unit. This after a loss of 49 Billion in bailing out GM, that number will grow in losses.


Viability of certain cars, and US investment in the companies is a separate issue.
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:20:41 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Lafayettemister wrote:
My bigger concern is something like those examples. Those little Chips or GPS inserts or whatever, can know everything that's going on inside your car's engine and computer. I'm more worried about government using it to track speed and things like that. Imagine getting a speeding ticked because your government installed GPS registered you doing 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Or if your GPS indicated you were in the area of a crime, they could come to you as a potential witness. Or perp.

I know there's a big difference between a private corporation and government, but it's not as big of a leap of faith that government could employ some of the same tactics. Just my opinion.


Actually, I didn't think about that. It's highly unlikely that it would ever get approved because everyone speeds... Even the US congress.

But yeah, that doesn't sound too different than red light cameras.

I'll give you that pablo.



Buz
Posted: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:09:25 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
Both the government and big corporate business want to spy on you and spy whenever and however they can. Its up to us as citizens to put limits on both. As a society we are losing out by allowing the government to take more control over our lives all the time. And government and huge corporations are in partnership. Notice that Obama & Congress didn't bail out any mom & pop businesses, only enormous corporations with union contracts and large guaranteed voting blocks; all part of a very corrupt government/corporate partnership.

I oppose taxing vehicles of any sort by the mile as an invasion into our privacy. We already pay taxes on the vehicle, the fuel, the tires, etc.

DLizze
Posted: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:23:52 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
lafayettemister wrote:


My bigger concern is something like those examples. Those little Chips or GPS inserts or whatever, can know everything that's going on inside your car's engine and computer. I'm more worried about government using it to track speed and things like that. Imagine getting a speeding ticked because your government installed GPS registered you doing 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Or if your GPS indicated you were in the area of a crime, they could come to you as a potential witness. Or perp.

I know there's a big difference between a private corporation and government, but it's not as big of a leap of faith that government could employ some of the same tactics. Just my opinion.


Which is why I have the gps disabled on my cell phone, and is just another reason NOT to buy a newer vehicle. I'll stick with my 1987 diesel fuel hog, thank you very much.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:01:34 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
DLizze wrote:


Which is why I have the gps disabled on my cell phone, and is just another reason NOT to buy a newer vehicle. I'll stick with my 1987 diesel fuel hog, thank you very much.




If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
CleverFox
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:04:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 482
Location: United States
If cars are becoming too fuel efficient for gasoline taxes to work, why don't they just put a tax on the tires? Every time you buy new tires you pay a highway tax. If you don't drive very much then your tires don't wear. It is a user tax, pure and simple.
foxjack
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:39:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
Edit:
I misread 2.2 cents a mile isn't that bad $2.2 for 100 miles.

As long as they don't charge truckers more, don't really need price inflation on every last product that gets delivered to stores.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.