Skip to comments.New DMV Head Advocates Tax On MilesDriven
Posted on 11/22/2004 4:26:38 PM PST by absalom01
POSTED: 10:16 am PST November 16, 2004
UPDATED: 6:19 pm PST November 16, 2004
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Tired of high gas prices? Right now, drivers are paying a tax of 18 cents for every gallon of gas bought. The new chief of the state Department of Motor Vehicles has an idea that would wipe out the gas tax, but at what cost?
This idiotic idea keeps popping up, and I'm having a really hard time seeing a reasonable justification for it other than wanting to be able to track everyone's movements. If the gas tax isn't bringing in enough money, then raise it. There's no need to invent a new tax and spend millions on the infrastructure to support it.
None of these Big Brother advocates has explained why the gas tax can't simply be raised, if they predict shortfalls.
We already have something simular to that. It is called tax on gasoline.
We need to go to hydrogen, with no tax on it. That will force them to cut agencies and expenses that are useless or worse enslave our people.
If they predict shortfalls, they should cut spending.. either get rid of a staffer or 20, pay their own heath insurance, or close down for 6 months.
Raising taxes is NOT THE ANSWER, so STOP suggesting it.
What they are trying to do is to restrict/discourage driving.
I'm guessing that they are afraid that people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles and continue to drive more and more miles, and that the gas tax won't be sufficient to discourage that behavior, even if raised.
But they'll never admit that.
If they really want people to drive less miles, they should get serious about encouraging telecommuting for those sectors in which it would make sense.
Not good news for folks in rural areas. May be it time to convert to corn oil...
I don't think you understand my point.
If this were truly a matter of insufficient revenue, they would simply proposed an increased gas tax.
But, that's not what this is about.
It's about bureaucrats trying to force you to drive less.
Time to reactivate the TAR & FEATHER motivation for ignorant "public servants"!
Every time one comes up with one of these asinine ideas or proposals -- out comes the feathers and fire up the tar!
Riding them out on the rail is only for the celebration afterwards.
"What they are trying to do is to restrict/discourage driving"
They know people in California have to drive. It's no more an attempt to restrict/discourage driving than tobacco taxes are an attempt to restrict/discourage smoking.
It's all about the revenue they think they can collect. Nothing more, nothing less.
First 5,000 miles per year: $0.02/mile
5,000-10,000 miles: $0.04/mile
10,000-20,000 miles: $0.08/mile
over 20,000 miles: $0.12/mile
If it were about revenue, why wouldn't they just raise the tax?
I know what they are up to.. Force you to drive cars that make them feel better, environmentally speaking, but winning control of your transportation choices. Having succeeded in that, NOW, PUNISH YOUR BUTT for having to drive long distances for jobs, since your own community jobs DRIED UP BECAUSE OF HOSTILE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS. Believe me I get it.. still... raising taxes is NEVER EVER EVER THE ANSWER... there are too many people to do not carry their own weight, in the LAST PLACE, and in first place is government waste, fraud, perks, and pay for non-performance.. Promises to government unions is sucking CA into the bowels of bankruptcy.. Scaaaaaaaaaarewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ANY TALK of raising taxes..
That does make sense. Of course, if they were really interested in solving traffic problems they'd look at ideas like congestion pricing, rather than charging the same amount per mile during rush hour and at midnight. So it looks like this is a Big Brother program to track us, or an environmentalist wacko social engineering scheme to make us ride bicycles. (And those aren't mutally exclusive).
This seems like Arnold is sending up a trial balloon, to try to found out the nature and extent of the opposition to this. (Makes me glad I voted for McClintock.)
The potential for this to be abused from a privacy as well fiscal standpoint is huge.
The question is how to fund roads and their repairs. We all bitch about roads, but none of us want to pay to fix them or build new ones.
This is the essence of it:
EVERY ROAD A TOLL ROAD
They want to force people out of their cars, by any means necessary.
Miles Driven Tax? Isn't that called the Gas Tax?
Because a 'fee' would only require a simple majority, while a 'tax' requires two thirds majority.
Incidentally, this is being looked into in a number of states, all over the country.
Anyone remember Moonbeam Brown's DMV brain trust with the name Adriana Gianturco. She single handily set Cal Highway construction back 50 years into the future...
Ironically, the more efficient your vehicle is, the more taxes you pay. Everyone will just buy five gallon fuel cans, disconnect "Big Brother" and cheat the system.
I pay a "road tax" in the form of fuel taxes even though I am powering generators and air compressors on construction sites. How about lawnmowers? Let's really make it complicated!
The problem is that even people who would be willing to pay an increased gas tax aren't convinced that any increase would actually go to building and maintaining roads. Instead, they rightly fear that much of it would be used to build bike lanes and light rail boondoggles.
Well, you could do that, and you could also have a tiered rate based on vehicle weight or any other criteria you care to dream up.
I agree with you that this is less about revenue that it is about implementing the "green agenda". People are fed up with tax increases and will be uh, reluctant to increase the gas tax unless and until all of it is spent on road construction and maintenance, which these people don't want. That's the last thing they want, in fact.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
They started researching this idea two years ago here in Oregon.
I'm going to put together an instruction manual for each car on how to disconnect the speedometer. I have 10,000,000 potential customers at 9.99 each (plus shipping and handling).
gas tax doesn't scale up the revenues as well.....people with free will can choose a more efficient car to avoid the tax, lowering the gov't take.
This way they get everyone (so they think)
After getting ticketed by one of those traffic cameras recently, I was thinking today while on the 405 how long it will be before there are cameras on the freeway taking pictures of all of us who are exceeding the 65 MPH limit...
I pay 37 cents a gallon in taxes. I have no problem with that IF it goes for what it was intended for. If they want to start dictating who pays more or less for the same product, then lets do it all the way. If I buy 5 gallons for my generator should I pay road tax fees on that 5 gallons? No? Then people will fill 5 gallon jugs and then leave and then pour them into their cars when they get home. Bad idea if you ask me.
Actually I am of two minds on this. One part thinks it's the greatest idea since sliced bread. Nothing like liberals screwing their lives up even more.
The other part acknowledges that California has the fifth largest economy in the world and if they finally destroy themselves their likely to take the rest of our economy down with them.
I took guilty pleasure during the energy crisis they had. I should go to confession over that now that I think of it.
Right -- there's a "pilot program" set up in Oregon for next year, I think.
The personal privacy issue makes this even more unpalatable, IMHO. I don't think that it's a smart idea to give this kind of power to a future opressive govenment, even if we completely trust our government as it's currently constituted.
If we had a true blue conservative governor, a lot of this foolishness would be nipped at the bud!
jailarity will ensue..
of course, the government is more entitled to spend my money than i am.
"The problem is that even people who would be willing to pay an increased gas tax aren't convinced that any increase would actually go to building and maintaining roads. Instead, they rightly fear that much of it would be used to build bike lanes and light rail boondoggles"
Sheesh, you still aren't thinking like a bureaucrat! All tax revenues, whether "earmarked" or not go into the general fund either directly or indirectly. This is true for all gov't everywhere. There are no exceptions.
money is then doled out to whatever constituencies the gov't deems worthy.
It's about the green alright.....the cash green.
Correction, a manual on how to repair you speedometer
Just unscrew the cable from the back. I have a 1993 truck for sale, it only has 18 miles on it. Going for a real good price! 8-)
HAHA....now your thinking!
LOL, The new stuff isn't that easy.
That, and this proposal is even more insidious -- the system does not rely on odometers (partly for the reason that fritzz identifies), but on a GPS device in the car. The tax authority can track WHERE and WHEN you are driving. Of course, this information wouldn't be kept on file, and would only be aggregated for tax purposes blah blah blah.
There is an upside -- you wouldn't have to buy a Lojack -- the cops could just use the gps on board you car. If your teenage kid is missing at 4:00 AM, maybe you could track the car and make sure she's safe (before you ground her for life).
Of course, there's the potential for abuse.
The same holds true for public thoroughfares such as highways and streets. There is definitely a "cost" associated with using these facilities, and a substantial amount of the cost is often paid through fuel taxes. The problem, though, is that the user does not pay an incremental cost that accurately reflects his use of the system; he has no clear financial incentive to vary his travel times and/or routes in response to variations in demand. In that sense, the motorist is similar to a customer in a restaurant with an all-you-can-eat menu. The restaurant will always make sure its prices are high enough to cover their costs, but once a customer has paid for his meal he has no incentive to stop eating because there is no incremental cost associated with each additional trip to the serving line. The natural end result is a customer base of obese people.
In an ideal situation, vehicle traffic would operate in a manner similar to electric and gas utilities, in which motorists pay more to travel during peak periods and/or on fast routes. The roadway system doesn't even have to be operated by a government entity; a number of states have experimented with privately-owned toll roads (parallel to "free" roads) that provide superior travel conditions to motorists who are willing to pay a price for it.
don't know 'bout your state, but in Ca. one used to be able to file for a refund for "non-highway" fuel tax - just save appropriate receipts
It didn't work.
They also lost a ton of money in non-collected truck taxes since the old method was abandoned.