Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can solve the "equitable" tax issue by going to a ton-mile based tax. In it's simplest form, it's a max weight rating for a vehicle taxed per mile of travel ... with today's GPS tracking technology, it wouldn't be that difficult to track each vehicle and bill an owner on that basis. A more equitable, but far more complex way would be to tax ton miles driven knowing the weight of the vehicle ... that's why the state has weigh stations for high weight vehicles. But load cell sensor technology on the corners of a passenger car could monitor the actual road weight per mile driven. All it takes is to bring the cost of such technology and reporting/monitoring down to a level where the cost/value for the tax revenue generated is reasonable.
Really? Are we that dedicated to giving money to our governments, that we'll volunteer to have them track EVERY movement we make in order to "make people pay more"?
The gas tax is by far the fairest way. You are taxing energy expended, whether you travel 10 miles in a $100,000 vehicle or 100 miles in a $100 vehicle or anything in between.
Taxing by the mile allows gubmint to track your every move. Where are you now? Where have you been. How long did it take you? What speed were you traveling? Did you come to a complete stop? etc.
Really? Are we that dedicated to giving money to our governments, that we'll volunteer to have them track EVERY movement we make in order to "make people pay more"?
There's been a lot of talk at the state levels about using the available technology ... like it or not, pnwmdk ... to make the tax input to support the infrastructure more "fair" according to "use".
This is not a foreign concept by any means: "use taxes" are well established as a means of collecting a gov't fee for services provided. Try entering a national park or forest without paying a "fee" for the use of it, for example. You either pay a daily entry fee per vehicle or you have an annual pre-paid parks pass. Put this in light of the concept of "public" ownership by the Fed, ie, you already "own" this land as a citizen and already pay taxes that have aquired, developed, and maintained the property and improvements thereon. Similarly, you "own" the public roadway system, but now you get to pay for your actual useage of the system.
The concept readily extends to equity on the use of the roads/highway system. A "ton-mile" tax charges a tax based upon the utilitization of the system. Drive a lightweight vehicle that does much less damage to the roadway system compared to a heavy vehicle that does damage the roadbed, and the equity of the tax system becomes obvious. At this point in time, there is an established system for collecting tax monies from the trucking industry on this basis, because the technology to do so has been around for a long time.
With modern technology, the same tax system could be readily implemented for all passenger vehicles.
Is there an aspect of invasion of privacy about this ... where you go, when you go, etc? IMO, yes. But this is already a well established aspect of road taxes when you consider the fee for use of many roads throughout the USA. Tollroads, turnpikes, bridge toll crossing fees ... have been in existence for centuries and are still in common use throughout the USA today. For years, I drove the only toll road in the USA that ultimately paid off the bonds that funded it's development and they retired the toll booths and stopped collecting the tax money (the Denver-Boulder tollroad, with the booths at Broomfield CO catching you in either direction). To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been done with any other toll road in the USA. And the new toll road perimeter around the Denver metro area is predominantly traveled by folk with electronic passes which monitor their time and distance of use, tracking when/where you get on the road and when/where you leave it.
Use public transportation in many forms, and you're tracked/taxed upon it's use. Buy an airline ticket, book passage on a passenger ship, even buy a bus ticket ... your transportation use is tracked on the manifests. These are essential gov't documents, and there's a long history of their use for many tracking purposes. Your travel "privacy" has been compromised for centuries ... even the sailing ships of long ago had passenger lists, and passports have been in common use to track entry/exit and travel for centuries.
All in all, I think that the concern of invasion of privacy for travel is a horse that has long been out of the barn ....
Do consider, however, that your concern about personal privacy does not yet require a link of the movement of a vehicle to the individual(s) being transported. Tracking a private vehicle for road tax does not yet identify who is in the vehicle, although the technology to do that most certainly exists via electronic monitoring of chip implants.
There's been a lot of talk at the state levels about using the available technology ... like it or not, pnwmdk ... to make the tax input to support the infrastructure more "fair" according to "use".
I'm sorry, since when did your wish for a fuzzy concept called "Fair" override our right to NOT have big brother tracking our every movement?
I don't care if you think it's "fair" or not. It is absolutely and utterly unacceptable.
The people of Wyoming are now paying the price of years of profligate spending by the state legislature and cooperating governors. Wyoming has an obscene and terrible percentage of employed people working for the state government. Those billion dollar surpluses could have relieved us of both the sales tax and high property tax. Now, a former government employee (no surprise there) suggests that we track all movements of the people. Maybe he's trying to get a job in Washington.
But there is a better way, the free enterprise way. The state can sell the interstate highways to businesses that will run them as toll roads. One condition of sale could be some very deep discount rates for residents who are regular users and who are driving cars and light trucks. Since these vehicles don't wear the roads much we could extend the same terms to our visitors. Toll roads work very well all over the world; they'll work here.
Beyond that it's belt-tightening time. We can start with the bloated government school system and go from there. What we do not need is cooperation with the Obama camp to collect more information on people who just a few years ago were free citizens. Recent disclosures clearly indicate that there are big plans to turn this country into the newest version of an Orwellian nightmare. We're not going to tolerate it here. Too many of us are refugees from big government states.
The high tax state of Michigan has removed pavement on many roads turning them into low cost gravel roads. Higher taxes will make the same thing possible here.
Last edited by Happy in Wyoming; 06-30-2013 at 11:50 AM..
Reason: typo
Every single thing that I can think of that equates to driving a vehicle having a negative effect on the environment or wear & tear on the highway burns more gas proportionally to the undesirable effects.
The quantity of gas used to get from A to B equates to the amount of energy you consume. Bigger, heavier, faster all consume more gas per mile.
It seems to me that the tax per gallon of gasoline is the perfect way to tax highway use because it equates directly to environmental and highway damage.
I don’t understand the logic that taxing per mile driven, regardless of the vehicle used, is fairer.
My take is that government is suggesting the tax-per-mile system not because it is fairer, because it makes no sense to me that it is, but because it will allow them to send you a summons in the email every single time you go 1 mile per hour over the speed limit or fail to make a complete stop at a stop sign, or pass another vehicle in a manner that they feel is dangerous, etc.
I'm sorry, since when did your wish for a fuzzy concept called "Fair" override our right to NOT have big brother tracking our every movement?
I don't care if you think it's "fair" or not. It is absolutely and utterly unacceptable.
If you are on the roads now or using public transportation that requires the purchase of a ticket, then you are under the "absolutely and utterly unacceptable" view of big brother.
Traffic cameras, police cameras, surveillance cameras are already in common use. Your movements have been tracked for years. Your electronic devices have been tracked for use, and mobile electronics have been tracked for location for years.
When did you raise your objections to all of these existing means of watching and recording your movements? or is it just now offending your privacy concerns for the first time?
If you are on the roads now or using public transportation that requires the purchase of a ticket, then you are under the "absolutely and utterly unacceptable" view of big brother.
Traffic cameras, police cameras, surveillance cameras are already in common use. Your movements have been tracked for years. Your electronic devices have been tracked for use, and mobile electronics have been tracked for location for years.
When did you raise your objections to all of these existing means of watching and recording your movements? or is it just now offending your privacy concerns for the first time?
That's a bunch of bologna.
I well remember traveling by plane as an adult without the need to show any identification. I don't know if it's required on trains today but I doubt strongly that it is on buses. But I doubt that it would take much of a counterfeit to keep my privacy.
I also recall very recently traveling to Canada and Mexico without needing any identification.
Something tells me that if the Obama crew did this there'd be a ready market for somewhat differently programmed GPS units. It won't happen here without intense federal pressure probably including some "accidental" deaths of legislators. They can be real RINOs but they won't do this to us.
Americans aren't yet ready for Cuba or North Korea. Wyomingites aren't ready for any additional moves to make the country totalitarian. And use of the word totalitarian is not hyperbole.
Every single thing that I can think of that equates to driving a vehicle having a negative effect on the environment or wear & tear on the highway burns more gas proportionally to the undesirable effects.
The quantity of gas used to get from A to B equates to the amount of energy you consume. Bigger, heavier, faster all consume more gas per mile.
Sorry, Wm Jas ... you still labor under the misconception that net energy used is directly the result of a straight line consumption of fuel; ie, more HP developed comes only at the expense of more fuel consumed. Wrong. There are operational efficiencies that enter into the real world of vehicle engines, and many are optomized for lower specific fuel consumption per HP hour at faster speeds than at lower speeds.
As mentioned above in this thread, you simply don't wind up with a doubling of fuel economy per mile by cutting your speed in half from highway cruising speeds. Don't believe this? try it with your own car. Head down the freeway at 1/2 your normal cruise speed for a meaningful distance and see what results in fuel mileage. Consider, too, that if you take twice the time to cover the same distance, you are exposed to twice the time of windage affecting your progress. That can be a very significant factor on Wyoming roads
It seems to me that the tax per gallon of gasoline is the perfect way to tax highway use because it equates directly to environmental and highway damage.
The fallacy here is that the light weight highly fuel efficient vehicle still shares the same roadway with the heavier vehicle.
I don’t understand the logic that taxing per mile driven, regardless of the vehicle used, is fairer.
You can't economically build one road system for the light weight fuel efficient vehicle and another for the heavier vehicles.
Even though you may choose to drive that highly fuel efficient lightweight vehicle, you are still ... if you are a consumer of any goods purchased at retail ... totally dependent upon the efficient transport of those goods on the roads suited for such use.
Again, that's why trucks are subject to ton-mile taxes as they transit the state roads. The mechanism for determining such taxable miles has long been in place. New technology now allows for that to be applied to a wider class of vehicles, to include passenger transport.
The extreme example of taxing per mileage would come into play with non-motor fuel transportation vehicles. Let's see ... bicycles come to mind. They use the roads, but where do they pay for them if they consume no gasoline? how about a 100% electric vehicle? doesn't stop at the fuel pump, does it? but it utilizes the road system which was paid for by taxing others that do stop at the fuel pump.
My take is that government is suggesting the tax-per-mile system not because it is fairer, because it makes no sense to me that it is, but because it will allow them to send you a summons in the email every single time you go 1 mile per hour over the speed limit or fail to make a complete stop at a stop sign, or pass another vehicle in a manner that they feel is dangerous, etc.
Agreed, once down the slippery slope of being able to identify use of a road system, then it's but one step away from further traffic control. We've already seen this in action with current technology in the car rental business, where the agencies were able to track the vehicle use and penalized drivers for speeding because the could track when/where a vehicle was operated in excess of the speed limit. IIRC, it was in FL where the major car rental agencies started using this technology until challenged in court over their right to levy fines for traffic violations.
In any event, the problem that now presents is the reality that we have motor vehicles that can escape paying for the roads they use if the only source of tax revenue is a fuel tax. If I'm paying at the pump for the road tax and the fellow next to me isn't, then that's not "fair", IMO.
If you are on the roads now or using public transportation that requires the purchase of a ticket, then you are under the "absolutely and utterly unacceptable" view of big brother.
Traffic cameras, police cameras, surveillance cameras are already in common use. Your movements have been tracked for years. Your electronic devices have been tracked for use, and mobile electronics have been tracked for location for years.
When did you raise your objections to all of these existing means of watching and recording your movements? or is it just now offending your privacy concerns for the first time?
First off, I don't approve of ANY of them.
Second, I just joined this forum, so attempting to discredit me or my opinions by pretending I don't object to all invasions of my privacy by government is dishonest and EXTREMELY insulting.
Third, one unjustified invasion DOES NOT justify another. Ever. EVER!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
