Nice. I can't wait to raise my rates: (Mark Whittington via Yahoo! News)
Casting about to find more creative ways to take money from Americans, in a study commissioned by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office proposed a "vehicle miles traveled" tax.
The rationale for such a tax is that the number of miles one travels on a highway is a more accurate measure of the wear and tear one's vehicle causes to the road than the gas tax. Tucked into the proposal is a provision to base the tax on vehicle size as well as miles driven.
Of course, every vehicle would have to have devices installed within them to measure the amount of miles driven that would electronically report the number to the government so that the tax can be accurately accessed.
One hardly knows where to begin. First, as Senator Kent Conrad admits, the VMT tax is going to be assessed on top of the gasoline tax. Part of the real reason the VMT tax is being considered is that as the price of gasoline rises, people are doing what the government says they should do and are buying and using more fuel efficient cars, thus lowering the revenue from the gas tax.
The VMT tax would be a great tool of social engineering. People who ride the bus or the train to work would pay less than people who drive. People who live in large states with lots of roads, which tend to be red states like Texas, will pay more. The high speed rail project would suddenly become more desirable.
The size and weight provision of the proposed tax is also pernicious. Red necks who drive pickup trucks and soccer moms who drive SUVs will pay more than the hippie who drives a Prius.
Politically, the idea of a VMT tax is a nonstarter. Chairman Conrad is slated to retire in 2012, so perhaps he thinks he can push such a tax without fear of electoral consequence. But the other Democrats, even those who never met a tax they were not in love with, must be leery about championing such a tax.
Many analysts believe that the electoral math makes a Republican takeover of the Senate virtually certain. That one powerful Senate Democrat who thinks that a massive new tax increase is a good idea makes that prospect even more likely.
Source: CBO: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement , Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill, March 24, 2011
Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota to Retire, Mark R. Whittington, Associated Content, Jan 18, 2011
Chock full of bias. Now lets discuss the taxes we already pay for roads. If I'm not mistaken, the taxes are state and local (and yes federal). It depends on many things not mentioned in the article and better left alone from the author.
Seems like the politicians can hang from their own self made noose. Why?... because no thought is put into the reason for new taxes that haven't already been taxed. Just giv'em more money and that will solve the problem...right.....yeah...right.
Naturally, however, I have to agree with him. Conrad is out of his mind proposing such a tax in the middle of this economic mess...
My solution has always been a Constitutional Amendment requiring sunsets on all Federal taxes, give Congress 30 days to debate prior to expiration, and 1 or 2 opportunities to extend another 30 days for additional debate.
Should those that drive electric cars be excused from taxes to keep up the roads?
I know people who spend 90 percent of their miles on gravel and dirt roads and out through fields. Not exactly hurting a highway somewhere.
Oh my Gosh, the cheapskates might actually have to pay for the roads! This guy must be a pinko commie!
You don't actually have to drive on a road to benefit from it. A good system of roads benefits the general economy which helps everyone except for maybe a hermit that lives in the mountains.
Dave...
We already pay for the roads thru other taxes. Quite a bit are paid for thru local/city taxes. The interstates are paid for by State a federal taxes. Maybe this is about balancing budgets...the funny thing is why...after all this time are THEY still trying to balance. If it is balanced then what other taxes will be reduced.
Unless of course they got it wrong to begin with....now how could something like that happen. Didn't folk's vote them in to get it right the first time? Glad we don't have to vote for our own surgeons....think about it.
The tax issues worry me less than the line about installing a device in every car to monitor. If they have that, there goes the last shred of privacy in your travel. They can tell where the car is at any time. Drive a few mph over the speed limit on a lonely road? Your ticket is in the mail. GPS not settled when you pull up to a stop sign? It thinks you are still moving so you get a ticket for that.
I am not for more taxes, but a weight mile tax is probably more fair, like it or not. Oregon commercial vehicles operate that way and have for years, BUT they do not pay state fuel tax, just the federal, so this is in lieu of state fuel taxes for commercial vehicles here in Oregon. The idea is that heavy trucks should pay more per based on the miles driven as they do more damage to the roads. IMHO (and a very unpopular one) studded tires should be heavily taxed too, they do a tremendous amount of damage to the pavement.
Privacy issues aside it does make some sense, BUT ONLY if you replace a current tax, which never ever happens!!!!!!!!
SHG
One of the problems with a weight tax is that most heavy vehicles carry goods that consumers purchase on a daily basis. The cost is indirectly being passed to the rest of us once again.
Of course it is as a cost of doing business. No different than a surveying business charging a client for miles based on their costs of operating that vehicle, regardless if it is a per gallon fuel tax or a weight mile tax or what have you it still goes into the overhead expense of providing the vehicle.
SHG