Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
So if all of the other taxes are kept in place and then they add a per mileage tax on top of that because people followed the suggestion and bought more fuel efficient cars then who in reality will be the most effected by this tax? Who is more likely to have to drive more? Could it be the working poor with two jobs on different sides of town? After all they are the least likely to be living close to work. Even working students might be hard pressed by this tax. will truck drivers be assessed this tax? More than likely they will or if not more people would simply get a commercial tag for their SUV.
It seems to me the people that can least afford a new Hybrid or fuel efficient car will be paying more for gas and so a higher gas tax in the first place and will have to commute father so they will have more miles on their vehicle as well.
Two valid points have already been made. We should be careful placing a crowbar in the free market. We should be careful about attacking business creators who can expand the middle class so that they don't move off shore or build robots to replace workers. A truism is there is no free lunch and often there are unintended consequences to this Robin hood taxation ideology. Saying that some don't pay their fair share for the roads they use sounds good I suppose but is that idea applied across the board? Do we apply it to buses? What happened when we tried that with health care? For me my health care went up 30 to 40 percent right away. Did everyone's go up that much? Was that intended? I would hope not but it happened. I have been reading that the cities that passed the $15.00 minimum wage have driven some to have to request fewer hours because they are no longer eligible for some housing and childcare benefits because of their new tax bracket. Do I think that was the intention? No. But we are getting close to killing the goose that laid the golden egg and at some point the goose may die. Making a tax that punishes someone for getting a EV or Hybrid could backfire quite easily. If it is no different tax wise if I drive a V-12 Jag from LA to Vegas or a Honda Civic Hybrid I sure as heck am not driving the Honda.
I agree almost entirely. A per mile tax or per gallon tax are both rationing by price. Both hit poorer people much harder than they hit higher income people. They don't gather enough revenues to maintain the roads, and neither has been very effective at reducing driving or gas usage.
I would vote for two alternatives that might be more effective for states like Oregon that want to experiment:
- Actual gas rationing with no cash buyouts.
- Revenue neutral fuel tax--Put an extremely high tax on gas, but use the revenues to give everybody--whether they drive a lot or not at all--a big rebate on their taxes. Those who want to drive can use the rebate to buy more gasoline. Sensible people will use the rebate to buy other things they want or need.
One big problem with these plans is that they don't raise money for the roads.