BERIGAN Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile CORVALLIS, Ore., Feb. 14, 2005 Taxing By The Mile Jayson Just commutes 2,000 miles a month. (Photo: CBS) "Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that." David Kim, engineer Toyota's fuel-efficient hybrid (Photo: AP) (CBS) College student Jayson Just commutes an odometer-spinning 2,000 miles a month. As CBS News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, his monthly gas bill once topped his car payment. "I was paying about $500 a month," says Just. So Just bought a fuel efficient hybrid and said goodbye to his gas-guzzling BMW. And what kind of mileage does he get? "The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on the highway," says Just. And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead. Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile." Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already started road testing the idea. "Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim. Kim and his team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one. "So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a certain fee which will be, let's say, one tenth of what someone pays if they drive 100 miles," says Kim. The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe. The system could also track how often you drive during rush hour and charge higher fees to discourage peak use. That's an idea that could break the bottleneck on California's freeways. "We're getting a lot of interest from other states," says Jim Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. "They're watching what we're doing. "Transportation officials across the country are concerned about what's going to happen with the gas tax revenues." Privacy advocates say it's more like big brother riding on your bumper, not to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars. "It's not fair for people like me who have to commute, and we don't have any choice but take the freeways," says Just. "We shouldn't have to be taxed." But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/...ain674120.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Time to start practicing driving in reverse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 I guess I don't see this being that big of a deal -- in fact, it makes a lot of sense. You use the road, you pay for it. Why should people who don't drive on the roads subsidize those who do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Why should people who don't have kids in school subsidize those who do? For that matter, why should people who buy cigarettes subsidize those who don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Why should people who don't drive on the roads subsidize those who do? Do you like fresh vegetables at the grocery? A nice choice of clothes at the mall? and yes... Jazz records shipped to your door? If you owned a store, would you want just the people within walkin distance to frequent it? The highway infrastructure is all our responsibility and benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 (edited) why should people who buy cigarettes subsidize those who don't? Don't get me started Jim. Cigarettes cost society much more in medical costs than is ever collected from tobacco taxes. Edited February 15, 2005 by scottb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Why should people who don't have kids in school subsidize those who do? For that matter, why should people who buy cigarettes subsidize those who don't? The logic behind subsidizing education is that there's a positive spillover from getting your fellow citizens educated even if you're not getting educated yourself. I think that logic differs from that for road taxation, which is not unlike the logic for utility fees -- in general, if you use electricity or gas or cellphone minutes or whatever you pay for it. I'm not sure exactly how the cigarette tax fits in with the other two examples... explain. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Ok, ciagrette tax ain't gonna fly here, so I'll drop it. Puff, puff, puff... But the eduaction thing - explain to me why it's advantageous to get my fellow citizens educated and then discourage them from driving once they are. And what about mass transit? Does a bus get taxed as a single entity, or does every rider pay the same tax? And what about people who can't get to where they need to go by bus? And do we cut a break for people who have to drive to and from work, and just tax the "recreational" driving? OOPS! There goes a helluva lot of shopping, dining out, movies, and such. The already fragile economy just got more fragiler! It's one of those concepts that sounds like it's fair, and a REALLY good idea, but it's really not. Not unless you want to shrink the notion of community, and that ain't the way of the world these days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted February 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 (edited) I guess I don't see this being that big of a deal -- in fact, it makes a lot of sense. You use the road, you pay for it. Why should people who don't drive on the roads subsidize those who do? It makes sense to have big brother force a device in your car to see how far you drive? (I am sure they are no doubt cheap items to purchace and install)It makes sense to charge the same amount per mile whether you drive a 2000 pound hybrid, or a 5000 lb SUV??? That 2000 lb car ain't doing much damage to the roads. Yeah, they can fix the last one , but we really don't need a new system, gas taxes are quite high as it is....If you are a poor student (unlike the one mentioned in the article above, you might not be able to afford to drive to and from home/work/school under the proposed system. IF it can be proven that there are not enough funds to fix the roads, increase the gas tax then..... Edited February 15, 2005 by BERIGAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Another point is, if shipping costs go up, the cost of goods follow and we're all going to pay for it one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 I guess I don't see this being that big of a deal -- in fact, it makes a lot of sense. You use the road, you pay for it. Why should people who don't drive on the roads subsidize those who do? One problem, which perhaps the technology can handle, is would drivers in Oregon be charged for miles driven outside of Oregon? Would Washington drivers who communte to Portland no longer pay for their use of the roads, assuming we rid ourselves of traditional gas taxes in favor of a GPS system outfitted in each car. Or maybe that's on top of the traditional tax. In the end, it just seems like an overkill in technology spending to accomplish something that would likely be easier to fix by simply raising the gas tax. Or instead of offering a tax break to hybrid cars, level an extra fee. Yup, a terrible thing to do after all of the talk of promoting clean air & fuel efficency, but like gambling revenue, the state is addicted to fuel hogs. Also Oregon also has a terrible record in getting value out of its technology spending, so I'm highly skeptical that they would bring in more money than they'd spend for this project. I'm waiting for them to think up some scheme to charge me for the miles I ride on my bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 If you think about it, people that drive more already pay more in gas taxes. So why change it? What's really wrong here is the idea of all cars being equipped with GPS. If they tell you it's just to track the miles, that will end up being complete bullshit. Next you will be getting speeding and parking tickets in the mail because they have the ability and your GPS gave them the proof. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 What's really wrong here is the idea of all cars being equipped with GPS. I completely agree. This is one of the biggest government infringements on privacy to uh.."come down the road" in a while. But I'll bet it'll happen. In fact, seems to me I remember hearing that new cars were already being equipped with such equipment, or plans were already in the works to require it. Hopefully it was while reading some wacko website, but I just don't remember... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 What's really wrong here is the idea of all cars being equipped with GPS. I completely agree. This is one of the biggest government infringements on privacy to uh.."come down the road" in a while. But I'll bet it'll happen. In fact, seems to me I remember hearing that new cars were already being equipped with such equipment, or plans were already in the works to require it. Hopefully it was while reading some wacko website, but I just don't remember... It would not surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgraham333 Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 What's really wrong here is the idea of all cars being equipped with GPS. I completely agree. This is one of the biggest government infringements on privacy to uh.."come down the road" in a while. But I'll bet it'll happen. In fact, seems to me I remember hearing that new cars were already being equipped with such equipment, or plans were already in the works to require it. Hopefully it was while reading some wacko website, but I just don't remember... you may have been thinking of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Thanks, Matt; that was it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 If you think about it, people that drive more already pay more in gas taxes. For the most part they do. However, with the ever increasing need to bring in revenues, some bureaucrat figured that if someone is commuting 60 miles each way 5 days a week in a hybrid instead of a Taurus or a SUV, the hybrid is costing the state about 4 gallons of tax revenue each day. Or 20 gallons a week. How dare that driver put fewer pollutants in the air and escape extra gas taxes! What irks me to no end is that studded tires are legal in Oregon. So you'll have people in the valley who go skiing a few times in the winter who put studded tires on the car. So every day in the valley, where it hardly ever snows (a couple of times a year at most, if at all), you hear these cars eating away at the roadway. It's absolutely crazy. Hmm, maybe we should tax skis to pay for road repair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 If you think about it, people that drive more already pay more in gas taxes. And people that drive less fuel-efficient vehicles pay more too!!!!! Sounds like the current system, which taxes Hummers and SUV's more per mile than Hybrids, works pretty darn well to me!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) If you think about it, people that drive more already pay more in gas taxes. And people that drive less fuel-efficient vehicles pay more too!!!!! Sounds like the current system, which taxes Hummers and SUV's more per mile than Hybrids, works pretty darn well to me!!!! I hate this big brother stuff. They're going to have GPS chips in your rear before too long. Is that tax deduction still available on the Hummer's? The one where they'd get 20 grand or so off the vehicle. It sure seems like government could do more with less in the past... Please don't get into a Republican/Democrat match. I'm neither. I think both parties are worthless. Our current leader sure doesn't act like a fiscal Republican anyway. Soon we'll have our national ID, less freedoms, and we still won't be any safer from the "thugs and terrorists." You just gotta laugh. Now I understand how Nero could fiddle away as Rome burned. Edited February 16, 2005 by AfricaBrass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I bet that it won't end up happening. This is one of those issues that will unify people on both sides of the political spectrum to oppose the government inserting a device in your car that would tell the givernment where you (or your car) is at all times. That is just one step short of putting a tracking device in every person's flesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I bet that it won't end up happening. This is one of those issues that will unify people on both sides of the political spectrum to oppose the government inserting a device in your car that would tell the givernment where you (or your car) is at all times. That is just one step short of putting a tracking device in every person's flesh. I would have completely agreed five years ago, but now anything is possible. We've entered Bizarro-World. All they have to do is say that it will help against terrorists and our leaders will lap it up like Pavlovian bongwater. 21st century American firsts: We've had two elections that are suspected to be fraudulent, but nothing was really done about it. We've invaded a sovereign nation for ever-changing reasons. I would love to see someone make a list of things that have happened in the last four years that would have seemed impossible before. It's enough to make your nervous system go "Tilt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I hate this big brother stuff. They're going to have GPS chips in your rear before too long. Well, as long as they have to bend down there to read it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 If you think about it, people that drive more already pay more in gas taxes. So why change it? What's really wrong here is the idea of all cars being equipped with GPS. If they tell you it's just to track the miles, that will end up being complete bullshit. Next you will be getting speeding and parking tickets in the mail because they have the ability and your GPS gave them the proof. No thanks. Agreed and that's not all they could do. This is an evil and insidious idea and a giant step towards complete facism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.