Poll: How do you prefer to pay more...Tax?

[OrangeJuleas]

I feel like taxing people based on the amount of driving they have done will punish people who have (unfortunately) long commutes where they are essentially getting 0 mpg for minutes at a time. Most of the people I know who have put over 100k miles on their car have done so because they work far from home. Maybe it's just because I live in LA, but it feels like they would soon be working just to pay for the emissions taxes...

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Option3: Big Brother (on the State level)
Either way, a higher price at the pump or an emissions tax are BOTH BETTER than what many states are proposing to close their transportation funding problem which is; Put trackers in our cars and tax us on how many miles we drive. (See: Oregon)

This doesn't need to be done on a daily (or even monthly) basis...

You can just have your odometer verified annually as part of vehicle registration, and your "mileage use" is taxed based on this annual registration inspection.

The program has a base allotment of miles (i.e. 10000 is the "free miles"), anything above that you start paying a flat tax of X cents per mile.

Something like that is not hard to do and infringes on no privacy rights. It's not exactly something you avoid anyways... every time you smog or transfer a car, you record the odometer with the DMV or equivalent agency.

-alex

[bcj]

That would drop the hammer HARD on people who cannot afford to live near where they finally were able to get a job.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by bcj

That would drop the hammer HARD on people who cannot afford to live near where they finally were able to get a job.

2 of the 3 would.

Gas tax and Mileage tracking would hurt the long distance commuter.

We get 30 year mortgages on our houses and want to raise our families in one school district but often times, over the course of 20 years we might change jobs several times. The "move closer to work" scenario has been a thing of the past for over 20 years now. So it makes sense to come up with a scenario that doesn't punish this unavoidable reality.

The CO2 tax (emission tax) sort of does that. You can get around the extra cost by getting a ULEV/TDI/Hybrid vehicle instead of commuting 100 miles round trip in a PT Cruiser or Lincoln Navigator.

[deange]

None of the above. Fund infrastructure (roads / bridges), first responders (police, fire, etc...), and military first. Then if there is more leftover fund other things. They take enough money in taxes already. Giving them more for "roads and infrastructure" does not mean that is what they will spend it on. It almost will be certain to go into more "general funds" and thus spent on other things until eventually we'll have to raise more taxes to pay for infrasturcture and then...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by deange

None of the above. Fund infrastructure (roads / bridges), first responders (police, fire, etc...), and military first..

Defense budget needs to be RADICALLY defunded. Not necessarily the military itself, but certainly the "military industrial complex", i.e. Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, etc. etc. etc.

It's nothing short of robbery at this point. Those guys are WELL lobbied for in congress, pay for god knows what percentage of congressional campaign funds.

[serialk11r]

Emissions/displacement/vehicle size tax are all stupid, just tax the fuel itself and let people sort out fuel economy for themselves. The goal is to burn less fuel and reduce imports right? Carbon tax and fuel tax are exactly the same thing, but the tax should be on consumption not potential consumption rate aka "emissions" ratings.

[deange]

I'm in the military and I actually think that aspects of it should be de-funded. I think we are going to go too far after this war, as we have following every other war, but in all I think it will make the military a leaner, better force in some ways.

I'm just simply saying where I think the priority of spending should be, and in that order. The idea that we don't have enough revenue is in my my totally false. We as a country simply mis-manage what we have.

I also think is would be non-productive to make it more expensive to be a driver (1,000 - 2,000 dollars to get a license).

[thill]

The problem with all this is that each state will decide how to tax. I don't see states like Texas going the emissions route, and states that are green will push for mileage tracking.. It will be a mess.

[Anthony]

The Venus Project.

The end!

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by bcj

That would drop the hammer HARD on people who cannot afford to live near where they finally were able to get a job.

You are already taxed on this, that's the standard gas tax. It would be no different. A mileage tax would have to replace the gas tax though, not "supplement" it.

[serialk11r]

Mileage tracking is too much effort. The only thing it allows you to do is potentially tax based on amount of damage done to roads, but you could approximate that with just gasoline tax (heavier cars tend to use more gas). Just bump gas up to $5/gal and people will soon rethink driving 18mpg cars 40 miles a day.

[thill]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Mileage tracking is too much effort. The only thing it allows you to do is potentially tax based on amount of damage done to roads, but you could approximate that with just gasoline tax (heavier cars tend to use more gas). Just bump gas up to $5/gal and people will soon rethink driving 18mpg cars 40 miles a day.

That's just it. People Are driving more fuel efficient vehicles (that are usually lighter) and states are not recognizing as much tax on gas. So states are proposing a mileage tax to go after those Prius owners.

[bcj]

Repeal an existing tax?

Unpossible!